document.write("\n\n
\n
\n

\n Activist Post

\n
\n
\n
\n

World's First Biometric Credit Card Will Arrive in 2015: Pay\nwith Your Fingerprint

\n
\n\n\n \nNicholas West\n
\n\n\nActivist Post\n\n
\n
In a recent article, \n\n\"In The Internet of Things YOU Will Be The Key,\" I outlined the\nmany ways that the human body will become the next-generation\nidentification system. The move to give everyone a \n\nglobal unique ID that can be verified across all human activity\nhas been in the works for some time and the applications are\npervasive.\n
\n
The fear of identity theft and cyber-banking crime has been\nthe latest sales pitch to encourage accepting identity tech such as\n\n\nvein scanners, facial recognition, \n\nvoiceprints, iris scans - \neven tears -  as well as their attendant\ndatabases. There is an ongoing cooperative effort between global\nbanks and corporations to ensure that there will be \n\nstandardized, centralized entry into the\nconsumer/Internet/banking matrix of the future.\n
\n
Another data point to note in the evolution of biometric ID\nis that MasterCard is now partnering with a Norwegian company\ncalled Zwipe to introduce the first fully biometric credit card,\nwhich will dispense with a PIN and instead use a fingerprint sensor\nfor verification.\n
\n
\nThe transition to a \n\ncashless society continues apace, while simultaneously\nincorporating an all-inclusive tracking database from which it will\nbecome very difficult to escape if one wishes to interact in any\nmeaningful way with a modern-day economy. Apparently, this means\neven a simple trip to the corner store:\n
\nLast month, he (Ajay Bhalla, president of\nenterprise safety and security at Mastercard - \nEd.) remarked on the future of biometric payments, saying \"\nthe idea of running out for some milk, walking into a store and\nusing your thumb print to make the purchase has sounded\nfuturistic, even if the technology has been in place for a while.\"\nHe added, \"We have already had great success in Africa, with\nfinancial inclusion projects which use biometrics to identify\nmillions of cardholders.\" (emphasis added)\n
\n \n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n\n \n\n
\n
Aside from the fact that fingerprints were only used to log\ncriminals in the past, the use of biometrics in Africa mentioned in\nthe quote above is certainly not unique, as \n\nIndia has implemented a biometric ID program for all of its 1.2\nbillion residents. Countries such as \n\nJapan and \n\nIsrael are also well on their way toward cashless societies.\nThis clearly shows the ability to scale up this technology to\neventually include everyone on the planet.\n
\n
As Brandon Turbeville has covered extensively, planet-wide\nbiometric ID is the stated goal of corporations, as well as various\nglobalist foundations. I would point you to the following articles\nfor a comprehensive overview:\n
\n \n \n\n'Better Than Cash Alliance' Backed by Bill Gates to Usher in\nCashless Society\n \n \n\nFacebook Banking on a Cashless Society\n \n \n\nBeyond the Cashless Society: IBM's Vision for the Future\n \n Zwipe does attempt to alleviate concerns about any type of\ncrossover use for your personal biometric signature:\n
\n\n\n\n \n...noteworthy features about the card technology is that \ncardholder fingerprint data is stored directly on the card, not\nin an external database, and there is no need for a PIN entry.\nWhat's more, the card functions without a battery; energy is\nharvested from the payment terminals. Activation is through a\nsimple fingerprint scan; the bank card can be used anywhere that\naccepts contactless payments. Also, cardholders can make payments\nof any amount with the card. (emphasis added)Perhaps,\nin this case, the fingerprint data itself isn't stored in a\ndatabase, but it would seem that the purchase information must be -\njust as every other financial transaction is. Perhaps it does,\nhowever, highlight a growing PR concern after multiple banking and\ncorporate hacks have put hundreds of millions of people's\nidentities at risk.\n
\n
These developments mark just how far down the path we are\ntoward pulling everyone into the financial matrix. In lieu of\nensuring that people must be given the choice to completely opt\nout, alternatives such as Bitcoin should be explored in order to\nmaintain some of its very best counter-functions. One clear\ndifference with Bitcoin and its attendant blockchain that needs to\nbe understood is that it is inherently a decentralized,\nnon-database structure that puts security into the hands of the\nend-user, not with any specific company charged with its oversight.\n(For a thorough look at what financial transactions and payment\nsystems really should look like, please see \n\nthis informative video featuring Bitcoin expert Andreas\nAntonopolous as he educates the Canadian Senate Banking\nCommittee - it's much more riveting than it sounds.)\n
\n
Nevertheless, the biometrics agenda goes far beyond financial\ntransactions, but this is the most palatable way to introduce the\nconcept as a logical necessity to solve myriad problems with\nbanking security. Naturally, the more people who are part of the\nbanking system, the more people who are held hostage by its\nfailures and are then forced to become integrated into the\nsolution. This should be kept in mind as we find ourselves in the\nmidst of a perfect storm of health crises where we are already\nhearing calls of Big Data to be employed for \nhealth\ntracking and \n\nBioSurveillance.\n
\n
Health and finances are easily the two greatest concerns for\nthe average person, so it's no mystery why they are starting here.\nBut what's next? What other \"threats\" are looming?\n
\n
\nMain source:\n
\n\nhttp://phys.org/news/2014-10-mastercard-zwipe-fingerprint-sensor-card.html\n
\n
\nRecently from Nicholas West:\n
\n \n \nInvisible Biometrics: Your Voice is Your New ID\n \n \nTwitter Opens Entire Database to MIT - How Will It\nBe Used?\n \n \n3D Printed \"Baby\" Robot Designed to Discover\nHumanity\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Obama Fights Ebola With A Czar and Soldiers

\n
\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n\nimage source\n \n \n\n Paul Craig Roberts\n
\n\n\nActivist Post\n\n
\n
UPDATE 10/18/14: A group of 30 doctors and scientists have\npublished their findings on the website of the \nNew England Journal of Medicine that the ebola ravaging West\nAfrica is a new strain of the disease and was not imported from\nCentral Africa. \n\n(Source) The doctors and scientists’ conclusion is consistent\nwith Dr. Cyril Broderick’s report in the update below that the\nstrain originated in US government biowarfare labs and was injected\ninto humans in Department of Defense field trials that began just\nweeks prior to the ebola breakout. The US government has a history\nof using unsuspecting humans for tests. Blacks in Alabama and\nGuatemalan soldiers and prisoners were infected with syphilis and\ngonorrhea in order to study the effects of the diseases and to\nexperiment with cures.\n
\n
Another interesting piece of information is that apparently\nsomeone had advance notice that there would be an ebola outbreak.\nThe \n\nNew York Daily News reports that Phoenix Air has a jet plane\nspecifically outfitted to transport ebola patients and that the\ncompany’s vice president said it required 30 months to get the\nplane equipped and ready. The ebola outbreak began six or seven\nmonths ago. The airplane took two and one-half years to create.\n
\n
\nUPDATE: \n\nhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/a-liberian-scientist-claims-the-u-s-is-responsible-for-the-ebola-outbreak-in-west-africa/5408459\n
\n
The public continues to be reassured that ebola is not a\nproblem for the US, but CNN reports that Obama has appointed an \n\nEbola Czar. \n\nThe Czar is not a medical person but an insider lawyer who\nserved as chief of staff to Vice President Biden.\n
\n
Little wonder ebola conspiracy theories are spreading faster\nthan ebola. And as far as any of us know, the conspiracies could be\ntrue.\n
\n \n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n\n University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle, an expert\nof the perfidies of the US government, reminds us that Sierra Leone\nand Liberia, the countries most affected by the ebola outbreak, are\ntwo West African countries that host US biological warfare\nlaboratories. Professor Boyle asks how the disease, which is mainly\nassociated with equatorial Congo reached West Africa thousands of\nkilometers away.\n
\n
Washington’s response is itself peculiar. The Obama regime\nsent 4,000 US soldiers to West Africa to fight ebola. Soldiers\ndon’t have training or equipment with which to combat ebola. Why\nexpose 4,000 Americans to an epidemic? This seemingly pointless\ndecision has raised suspicions that Washington is exposing troops\nto ebola so that vaccines or treatments can be tested on the\ntroops.\n
\n
\n\n\n \nOther commentators have noticed that West Africa is an area of\nChinese investments. They wonder if Washington is using the cover\nof ebola to occupy the countries or even set the disease loose in\norder to drive out the Chinese. The new US Africa Command was\nformed to counteract Chinese economic penetration in Africa.\n
\n
The incompetence of US public health authorities in\nresponding to ebola gives legs to these theories. Real conspiracies\nabound. Those who say \“it’s just a conspiracy theory\” need to look\nup the meaning of conspiracy. As one commentator observed, the\nCDC’s response to ebola is too stupid for stupid.\n
\n
The CDC’s protocol is based on assumptions about ebola that\ndo not seem to be true for the current strain. A nurse, who treated\nthe ebola patient in Dallas who died, was given the green light to\nfly commercially even though she reported to CDC that she had\nsymptoms. She exposed 132 passengers on the flight, and these\npassengers have since been in contact with thousands of other\npeople. \n\nThe Daily Mail has published photographs of an American with a\nclipboard and without protective suiting boarding the nurse on a\nprivate airplane on way to hospital quarantine. \n
\n
US public health authorities have imposed no quarantine on\ntravel to the US from infected countries. US airlines continue to\nfly to and from from the infected countries despite the risk of\nintroducing new infections into the US.\n
\n
African countries are doing a much better job than the\nhegemonic superpower. They have closed borders, prevented air\ntravel, and tracked down infected persons and those exposed to\nthem. \n\n(Source)\n
\n
Instead of taking sensible precautions, the Obama regime\nappoints an Ebola Czar and sends 4,000 Americans into the areas\nwhere the disease rages.\n
\n
Little wonder that Americans have no confidence in their\ngovernment.\n
\n
As the Republicans want to privatize and outsource\neverything, why not close down Washington and outsource our\ngovernance to a more competent country?\n
\n
Note: And there is this view also:\n
\n\nhttp://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/ebola-hoax-hidden-purpose-of-the-operation/\n
\n
\nThis article first appeared at Paul Craig Roberts' website \n\nInstitute For Political Economy\n.  Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the\nTreasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall\nStreet Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard\nNews Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university\nappointments. His Internet columns have attracted a worldwide\nfollowing.\n
\n
\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n

City Council Meeting Closed Down Over a \"F**K The Police\"\nHat

\n
\n\nYouTube\n\n
\n
A chaotic battle over free speech broke out last night, and\nthe mayor abruptly canceled the meeting.\n
\n
\n\n
Read more details \n\nhere\n
\n
\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement\n(TPP)

\n
\n\n\n \n\n\nActivist Post\n\n
\n
WikiLeaks has released a second updated version of the\nTrans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Intellectual Property Rights\nChapter. The TPP is the world's largest economic trade agreement\nthat will, if it comes into force, encompass more than 40 per cent\nof the world's GDP. The IP Chapter covers topics from\npharmaceuticals, patent registrations and copyright issues to\ndigital rights. Experts say it will affect freedom of information,\ncivil liberties and access to medicines globally. The WikiLeaks\nrelease comes ahead of a Chief Negotiators' meeting in Canberra on\n19 October 2014, which is followed by what is meant to be a\ndecisive Ministerial meeting in Sydney on 25–27 October.\n
\n
Despite the wide-ranging effects on the global population,\nthe TPP is currently being negotiated in total secrecy by 12\ncountries. Few people, even within the negotiating countries'\ngovernments, have access to the full text of the draft agreement\nand the public, who it will affect most, none at all. Large\ncorporations, however, are able to see portions of the text,\ngenerating a powerful lobby to effect changes on behalf of these\ngroups and bringing developing country members reduced force, while\nthe public at large gets no say.\n
\n
\nJulian Assange, WikiLeaks' Editor-in-Chief,\nsaid:\n
\nThe selective secrecy surrounding the TPP negotiations,\nwhich has let in a few cashed-up megacorps but excluded everyone\nelse, reveals a telling fear of public scrutiny. By publishing this\ntext we allow the public to engage in issues that will have such a\nfundamental impact on their lives.\n
\n \n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n\n The 77-page, 30,000-word document is a working\ndocument from the negotiations in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, dated\n16 May 2014, and includes negotiator's notes and all country\npositions from that period in bracketed text. Although there have\nbeen a couple of additional rounds of talks since this text, little\nhas changed in them and it is clear that the negotiations are\nstalling and that the issues raised in this document will be very\nmuch on the table in Australia this month.\n
\n
The last time the public got access to the TPP IP Chapter\ndraft text was in November 2013 when WikiLeaks published the 30\nAugust 2013 bracketed text. Since that point, some controversial\nand damaging areas have had little change; issues surrounding\ndigital rights have moved little. However, there are significant\nindustry-favoring additions within the areas of pharmaceuticals and\npatents. These additions are likely to affect access to important\nmedicines such as cancer drugs and will also weaken the\nrequirements needed to patent genes in plants, which will impact\nsmall farmers and boost the dominance of large agricultural\ncorporations like Monsanto.\n
\n
\n\n\n \nNevertheless, some areas that were highlighted after WikiLeaks'\nlast IP Chapter release have seen alterations that reflect the\ncontroversy; surgical method patents have been removed from the\ntext. Doctors' groups said this was vitally important for allowing\ndoctors to engage in medical procedures without fear of a lawsuit\nfor providing the best care for their patients. Opposition is\nincreasing to remove the provision proposed by the US and Japan\nthat would require granting of patents for new drugs that are\nslightly altered from a previous patented one (evergreening), a\ntechnique by the pharmaceutical industry to prolong market\nmonopoly.\n
\n
The new WikiLeaks release of the May 2014 TPP IP text also\nhas previously unseen addendums, including a new proposal for\ndifferent treatment for developing countries, with varying\ntransition periods for the text to take force. Whilst this can be\nviewed as an attempt to ease the onus of this harsh treaty on these\ncountries, our diplomatic sources say it is a stalling tactic. The\nnegative proposals within the agreement would still have to come\ninto force in those countries, while the governments that brought\nthem in would have changed.\n
\n
Despite the United States wanting to push to a resolution\nwithin the TPP last year, this bracketed text shows there is still\nhuge opposition and disagreement throughout the text. At this\ncritical moment the negotiations have now stalled, and developing\ncountries are giving greater resistance. Despite the huge lobbying\nefforts, and many favorable proposals for big pharmaceutical\ncompanies, they are not getting entirely what they wish for either.\nJulian Assange said:\n
\nThe lack of movement within the TPP IP Chapter shows\nthat this only stands to harm people, and no one is satisfied. This\nclearly demonstrates that such an all-encompassing and divisive\ntrade agreement is too damaging to be brought into force. The TPP\nshould stop now.Current TPP negotiation member states\nare the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia,\nChile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei.\n
\n
People to go to for comment: HealthGap Professor Brook Baker,\nSenior Policy Analyst b.baker@neu.edu\n
\n
Knowledge Ecology International James Love, Director +1 202\n361 3040 +1 202 332 2670 james.love@keionline.org\n
\n
Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) Judi Rius Sanjuan, US Manager,\nMSF Access Campaign +1 917 331 9077\n
\n
Public Citizen Peter Maybarduk, Director of Global Access to\nMedicines Program +1 202 588 7755 pmaybarduk@citizen.org\n
\n
\nSource: \nWikiLeaks\n
\n
\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n

10 Questions for The WHO About Ebola

\n
\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\nActivist\nPost\n\n
\n
The World Health Organization is claiming that we are facing\nthe most severe health crisis ever with the alleged Ebola outbreak\nin West Africa.\n
\n
But since the WHO was caught inflating the Swine Flu pandemic\nto foist experimental vaccines on the world, perhaps we should not\njust take them at their word without demanding evidence.\n
\n
\nHere are 10 questions for the World Health Organization to\nanswer about the Ebola outbreak in Africa:\n
\n
1. You include \"probable and suspected\" cases of Ebola in\nyour official African figures; what methods do you use to determine\nsuspects and probables?\n
\n
2. What is the exact number of \"confirmed\" cases of Ebola\n(minus the probable and suspected cases)?\n
\n
3. What method was used for confirming that Ebola was indeed\nthe cause of death in those cases, and what organization made that\ndetermination and gathered that data?\n
\n
4. Can you provide a full list of all WHO-approved\nvaccination programs for West Africa conducted in the year leading\nup to the Ebola crisis?\n
\n
\n5. Can you provide a full list of the\ngenetically modified (GMO) mosquito experiments for presumptive\ntreatment of dengue and malaria that are being conducted in the\nEbola-stricken regions? Reviewing the effects of these experiments\nmight be of value to the blind participants.\n
\n \n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n\n 6. How many of the confirmed Ebola victims received vaccines\nor any other treatment from the Western NGOs (i.e. Red Cross,\nDoctors Without Borders) in the months leading up to their Ebola\nillness?\n
\n
7. Do you have public water samples from Ebola regions to\nrule out contamination? Please show them to us.\n
\n
8. West Africa has one of the lowest life-expectancy rates in\nthe world at around 55 years. Does that compromised health\nenvironment lead to higher mortality rates for this supposed strain\nof Ebola?\n
\n
9. How many of the alleged African Ebola victims also had\ncompromised immune systems due to HIV/AIDS, the number one cause of\ndeath in the region?\n
\n
10. Why are health workers wearing hazmat suits if Ebola is\nmerely infectious like AIDS, when Tuberculosis, a highly contagious\nairborne disease, doesn't even require hazmat suits? It's a bit\ntheatrical, don't you think? And why isn't it working to stop\ntransmission to medical professionals?\n
\n
This list is just scratching the surface. Please add your\nquestions to the WHO or the CDC in the comment section below:\n
\n
\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Cyber-Espionage and Trade Agreements: An Ill-Fitting and\nDangerous Combination

\n
\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n\nimage source\n \n \n\n Jeremy Malcolm\n \n
\n\n\nElectronic Frontier Foundation\n\n
\n
Yesterday's leak of a May 2014 draft of the \nTrans-Pacific\nPartnership (TPP) agreement revealed the addition of new text\ncriminalizing the misuse of \ntrade\nsecrets through \"computer systems\", as mentioned in our \n\nprevious post about the leak. This is a significant revelation,\nbecause we also know that \n\ntrade secrets are planned for inclusion in the EU-US free trade\nagreement, TTIP (the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment\nPartnership). The revelation of the proposed text in the TPP\nprovides a good indication that the same kind of language will\nlikely also appear in TTIP. Frighteningly, this text contains no\nprotections to safeguard the public interest.\n
\n
Today we delve into this provision and its background in more\ndepth.\n
\n
\n\nWhy Trade Secrets, and Why Now?\n
\n
The US Trade Representative's \n\nsudden interest in trade secret protection arises largely from \n\nreports of widespread cyber-espionage against US companies\nemanating from China. This has also led to domestic proposals such\nas this year's \n\nDefend Trade Secrets Act, introduced in the Senate in April,\nand its companion House bill, the \n\nTrade Secrets Protection Act, which would create a new federal\nprivate right of action for trade secret theft.\n
\n
In August this year, 31 law professors wrote a \n\njoint letter opposing these bills on a number of grounds,\nincluding that they are unbalanced, risking that they could be used\nfor anti-competitive purposes, and that they have potential\nancillary negative impacts on access to information. The professors\nwrite:\n
\nLabeling information as a trade secret has become a\ncommon way to prevent public and even regulatory access to\nimportant information ranging from the composition of hydraulic\nfracturing fluids to the code inside of voting machines, all of\nwhich have compelling (but not uncontroversial) reasons for public\naccess in a democracy.\n
\n \n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n\n Even if these new US bills pass, their\nenforceability against foreigners will be, in practical terms,\nrather limited. The introduction of new language on trade secrets\ninto both TTP and TTIP—which may become the United States' two\nlargest trade agreements—is therefore a parallel tactic to address\ncyber-espionage on the global stage.\n
\n
(Observant readers might have spotted an apparent flaw in\nthis plan, given that China will not be a party to either of these\nagreements. But the reasoning is that if enough other countries\nagree on new global standards, diplomatic pressure can be applied\non China to also comply. As the \nEuropeans\nhave put it, \“The EU and the US also have a common interest in\npursuing protection of trade secrets against misappropriation in\nthird countries\”.)\n
\n\n
Paragraph 1—Trade Secrets\n
\n
The language in the TPP, however, doesn't much resemble\neither of the current Congressional bills. This is because if the\nTPP is agreed, it will create an obligation on the US to ensure\nthat it accords with domestic law, and the US Trade Representative\nis unable to guarantee that the bills currently in Congress will\npass. Instead, the first paragraph is drawn from \nTRIPS, the\nmultilateral treaty that sets a global minimum standard for\nso-called \n\nintellectual property protection, and the second and third\nparagraphs are brand new, but share lineage with both the \nEconomic\nEspionage Act and the \nComputer Fraud and Abuse\nAct (CFAA).\n
\n
\n\n\n \nThis is where things get complicated—because the legal\ntheories, methods and objectives of those two sources are actually\nquite different.\n
\n
So beginning with \nparagraph\n1: it very closely mirrors the language that TRIPS members\n(including all the TPP negotiating countries) have already agreed.\nIt requires them to offer the means to prevent trade secrets from\nbeing disclosed to, acquired by, or used by others without consent\nin a manner contrary to honest commercial practices. This\ngenerally, as in the US, involves a private cause of action to be\nlitigated in a civil court.\n
\n\n
Paragraphs 2 and 3—Computer Espionage\n
\n
Next, let's turn to paragraphs 2 and 3, which are worth\nsetting out in full:\n
\n\n \n Each Party shall provide for criminal [VN propose: or\nadministrative] procedures and penalties for one or more of the\nfollowing:\n
\n \n the unauthorized, willful access to a trade secret held in a\ncomputer system; \n the unauthorized, willful misappropriation of a trade secret,\nincluding by means of a computer system; or \n the fraudulent {or unauthorized} disclosure of a trade secret,\nincluding by means of a computer system. \n \n A Party may, where appropriate, limit the availability of such\ncriminal procedures or limit the level of penalties available in\nrespect of the aforementioned activity to one or more of the\nfollowing conditions:\n
\n \n for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain; \n related to a product or service in national or international\ncommerce; \n intended to injure the owner of such trade secret; \n directed by or for the benefit of or in association with a\nforeign economic entity; or \n detrimental to a Party's economic interests, international\nrelations, or national defense or national security. \n \n \nThese provisions are quite different from the first,\nbecause they make trade secret misappropriation a criminal offense.\nAs noted above, these provisions partly draw on the US Economic\nEspionage Act. But they go considerably further, in that the\noffense is not required to be limited to cases where the owner is\nharmed and where someone else benefits from the trade secret\nmisappropriation, both of which are conditions of the offense under\ncurrent US law.\n
\n
They also add a new offense of unauthorized, willful access\nto a trade secret held in a computer system, regardless of whether\nthe trade secret is copied or disclosed. This provision has more in\ncommon with the CFAA which criminalizes anyone who \“intentionally\naccesses a computer without authorization…and thereby\nobtains…information from any protected computer\”—one of the\nprovisions under which \n\nAaron Swartz was charged.\n
\n
So in sum, these provisions go further than current US law,\npotentially criminalizing anyone who gains access to secret\ninformation of commercial value. There are no safeguards to protect\ninvestigative journalists, security researchers or whistleblowers,\nwho may obtain access to information without criminal or commercial\nintent. The inevitable result will be to chill the speech of those\nwho might otherwise have a valid public interest justification for\nreleasing information that had been kept secret.\n
\n
The TPP and TTIP are, supposedly, free trade agreements; they\nare not the \nCybercrime\nConvention. If this text were accepted, it would be the first\ntime that a trade agreement would be used to criminalize those who\nobtain access to secret information held online, regardless of\ntheir motivation and without any public interest defenses. Like the\nrest of the IP chapter—but if anything, even more so—this goes far\nbeyond the appropriate scope for an agreement that is being\nnegotiated behind closed doors and away from public oversight.\n
\n
We don't know for sure that these paragraphs are included in\nthe current TPP text, as the leaked text is several months old. It\nalso contains the disclaimer, \“Parties are still reflecting on the\nnew formulation for paragraphs 2 and 3.\” As such a spokesperson for\nthe US Trade Representative has \n\nhad the gall yesterday to \“strongly caution anyone from drawing\npremature conclusions of any kind based on supposed leaked text\nfrom unsubstantiated, unnamed sources\”, as if we had any more\nofficial source of information on which to draw.\n
\n
All we can say is that we had all better hope that these\nprovisions don't make it into the final agreement, because they are\namongst the most atrocious, overreaching and human-rights\ninfringing provisions in the entire text of the TPP.\n
\n
\n\nPlease visit \nEFF for the latest news in\ndigital privacy and human rights. \n\n
\n
\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Ebola hoax: hidden purpose of the operation

\n
\nThe Reality Manufacturing Company paints a mural of reality for\nthe masses; the Company paints a bigger and bigger mural,\nentangling more people in more systems… (The Magician Awakes,\nJon Rappoport) \n
\n
\n\n\n \nJon Rappoport\n
\n\n\nActivist Post\n\n
\n
Behind every phony pandemic, there are a number of agendas in\nplay.\n
\n
In this case, the Globalist heavy hitters, who are dedicated\nto managing the planet, view things this way:\n
\n
***Use a crisis to build a larger structure than previously\nexisted.\n
\n
As in: one global healthcare system. All-encompassing.\n
\n
The propaganda? \“We can’t defeat Ebola unless all nations\nform one system that allows prevention and quarantine and immediate\ntreatment anywhere on Earth.\”\n
\n
In that sense, Ebola is the occasion for adding wings to the\nsystem.\n
\n
\nDitto for every so-called epidemic.\n
\n
\“Well, we faced down and ultimately defeated virus X. But at\ngreat cost of life. Now we have to build better bridges between the\nhealthcare systems of nations—and finally, we need one great\nDispensary that adjudicates where drugs and vaccines go, who is\nquarantined, which borders are sealed off, at any point on the\nglobe.\”\n
\n \n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n\n We’re talking about a very high-level op here.\n
\n
The Globalist dream? A single cradle-to-grave maze every\nperson on earth follows, as a docile patient taking orders,\nsubmitting to diagnoses, taking vaccines and drugs, allowing their\nbodies and minds and energies and strength and independence to be\ndrained away.\n
\n
A single global medical system is the ideal structure of\ncontrol.\n
\n
Crisis A? Build a bigger system. Crisis B? Add to that\nsystem. Crisis C? Add more to the system.\n
\n
And of course—invent each crisis.\n
\n
The \“medical crisis\” is ideal, because it seems to involve no\npolitical agenda, no partisan position, no motive other than\n\“helping those in need.\”\n
\n
You’ll be hearing phrases like \“the pitfalls of privatized\nmedicine,\” and \“uncaring corporations,\” and \“the UN has to step in\nto solve the Ebola crisis,\” and \“international cooperation.\”\n
\n
\n\n\n \nRealize that behind these phrases, there is another op in\nprogress. It has nothing to do with predatory corporations or\ngreedy doctors. It has everything to do with building Medical\nCentral for planet Earth.\n
\n
Under that system, up the line, a patient would have no\nchoice about whether to accept a diagnosis or take a drug or\nvaccine.\n
\n
The watchword will be: compliance.\n
\n
For \“the greater good.\”\n
\n
Over the past hundred years, no force has been more powerful\nin shaping modern medicine than the Rockefeller empire.\n
\n
In his 2003 Memoirs, David Rockefeller wrote: \“Some even\nbelieve we are part of a secret cabal working against the best\ninterests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as\n‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world\nto build a more integrated global political and economic\nstructure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand\nguilty, and I am proud of it.\”\n
\n
Rockefeller is acutely aware that one of the prime strategies\nfor bringing his dream (nightmare) to fruition is: a one-world,\nall-embracing medical apparatus.\n
\n
There are some who welcome such an enterprise, naively\nbelieving it will mean greater health for all.\n
\n
For them, I cite (as I frequently do) Dr. Barbara Starfield’s\nshattering review: \“Is US health really the best in the world?\”\n
\n
Starfield was a revered public-health expert working at the\nJohns Hopkins School of Public Health. Her review was published on\nJuly 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.\n
\n
Starfield concluded that, every year in the US, the medical\nsystem directly kills 225,000 people. Every year.\n
\n
That’s 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.\n
\n
So imagine, if you will, what would happen if the Globalist\ndream of one \“healthcare\” system for the planet came true.\n
\n
And don’t imagine such a system would involve solving the\nongoing, endemic causes of death in most of the world: contaminated\nwater, starvation, lack of basic sanitation, overcrowding, poverty.\n
\n
The World Health Organization has had decades to make a\nsignificant dent in those grinding problems. But they talk; they\nappoint task forces; they study; they demand the distribution of\nmore (toxic) medicines, and vaccines that push already-compromised\nimmune systems over the cliff.\n
\n
\nThe author of three explosive collections, \n\nTHE MATRIX REVEALED, \n\nEXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and \n\nPOWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US\nCongressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains\na consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is\nthe expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer\nPrize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years,\nwriting articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS\nHealthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers\nand magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and\nseminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to\naudiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at \nwww.nomorefakenews.com\n
\n
\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Pentagon Gets Called on Blaming Putin for Moving Russia\nCloser to NATO

\n
\n\n\nActivist Post\n\n
\n
It's too easy to make Pentagon officials look foolish these\ndays. Deer in headlights is a good look for U.S. commanders. The\nPentagon gets called out for blaming Putin for being on NATO's\ndoorstep after NATO expands to Russia's doorstep.\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Colorado Earthquake at Fracking Operation! California\nVolcanoes Waking!

\n
\n\nDutchsinse\n\n
\n\n
\n
\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\n \n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n \n
");