Experts Suspect Military Testing Behind Mass Bird and Fish Deaths
by Terrence Aym
Salem-News.com
January 8, 2011
The birds suffered from acute physical trauma leading to internal hemorrhage and death” –Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
- Two species in two days have died off by the thousands in Arkansas. A local fish and wildlife official jokingly told a reporter, “We’re waiting on the locusts next.”
(CHICAGO) – It’s been said that Mankind will destroy itself. Unfortunately, during the past 100 years the human race has worked hard to make this prediction come true. Nuclear arsenals can destroy Mankind many times over. Alien biological weapons exist that can annihilate all humanity. Toxins are available that are so deadly a few drops in a city’s water supply can kill millions.
Yet another weapons technology has been under development for some decades. Scalar technology—invented by the genius Nikola Tesla early in the 20th Century—has the potential to turn the environment itself into a weapon and tune its deadly properties into a merciless, near instantaneous killer.
That advanced technology may have just been tested in Arkansas and Louisiana.
Ominous evidence is steadily growing that the bizarre red wing blackbird deaths—now being reported across three states—are not natural.
Although some scientists have proposed that the initial bird death—numbered at 5,000—might have been caused by fireworks, ornithologists scoff at that suggestion.
Other theories floating about include speculation that severe updrafts or a local micro-burst killed all the birds, yet that is highly improbable and does not jive with eyewitness testimony of local residents who watched the birds literally drop from the sky.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE…
Mass bird deaths bookend 2011
Nearly 12 months after a rash of bird bloodbaths made international news, another big avian ‘Aflockalypse’ has struck in southern Utah.
by Russel McLendon
Mother Nature Network
December 15, 2011
2011 began with a series of high-profile bird disasters, and now a new one has struck as the year comes to an end. Nearly 12 months after thousands of crows and blackbirds mysteriously died from Arkansas to Sweden, an estimated 1,500 eared grebes — a duck-like aquatic bird — have fallen to their deaths in southern Utah.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE…
[Potent News Editor’s note: Click HERE to hear a discussion (from Jan. 3rd, 2011) of whether or not secret government testing plays a role in mysterious mass bird deaths being reported.]
Boston Dynamics Contracted To Make First ‘Terminator-like’ Hunter-Seeker (video)
Photo: Boston Dynamics
by Shepard Ambellas
The Intel Hub
November 26, 2011
The Department of Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been extremely interested in robotic and cyber technology over the past few years and has now contracted Boston Dynamics to make the first Terminator-like robot fully functional.
When will we reach a point where robots become self-aware?
The Answer is — We already have, as reported in the article “Army Achieves ‘Skynet’ —Self-Aware Decision Making Network“
Boston Dynamics (the makers of the FEMA ‘Big Dog’) are contracted to design a few items for DARPA. A robotic chetah that can outrun the fastest man, zig-zag, turn, maneuver, and stop on a dime is in the works as we speak.
Boston Dynamis said;
“It will be able to zig-zag and take tight turns in order to chase and evade…. it will also be able to make sudden stops and could end up with a tail.”
Then there is the Atlas — made by Boston Dynamics, a robot that actually looks like the terminator with no head. The robot can walk heal-to-toe “like a person” over any terrain and stay upright if pushed.
Here is a clip from CNN:
Ladies and gentlemen — once these products become militarized for the battlefield (Battlefield: Now almost defined to be right outside your window) it will be game on — we officially have entered the hunter-seeker era.
Free Syria Army Now Led by NATO-Libya Al Qaeda Commander
by Thierry Meyssan
Voltaire Net
December 20, 2011
In the wake of the “Arab Spring” and NATO interventions, both official and secret, Qatar seeks to impose Islamist leaders wherever possible. This strategy has led it not only to fund the Muslim Brotherhood and to hand Al-Jazeera over to them, but also to support Al Qaeda mercenaries, who will henceforth oversee the Free Syrian Army. However, this new scenario raises serious concerns in Israel and among the supporters of the “clash of civilizations.”
The UN Security Council members are at loggerheads over the interpretation of the events that are rocking Syria. On one hand, France, the United Kingdom and the United States claim that a revolution has swept the country, in the aftermath of the “Arab Spring”, and suffering a bloody crackdown. On the other hand, Russia’s and China’s take is that Syria is having to cope with armed gangs from abroad, which it is fighting awkwardly thereby causing collateral victims among the civilian population it seeks to protect.
The on-the-spot investigation undertaken by Voltaire Network validated the latter interpretation [1]. We have collected eyewitness testimonies from those who survived an armed attack by a foreign gangs. They describe them as being Iraqis, Jordanians or Libyans, recognizable by their accent, as well as Pashtun.
In recent months, a certain number of Arab newspapers, favorable to the Al-Assad administration, discussed the infiltration into Syria of 600 to 1,500 fighters from the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya (IFGL), rebranded Al Qaeda in Libya since November 2007. In late November 2011, the Libyan press reported the attempt by the Zintan militia to detain Abdel Hakim Belhaj, companion of Osama Bin Laden [2] and historic leader of Al Qaeda in Libya, who became military governor of Tripoli by the grace of NATO [3]. The scene took place at Tripoli airport, as he was leaving for Turkey. Finally, Turkish newspapers mentioned Mr. Belhaj’s presence at the Turkish-Syrian.
Such reports have been met with disbelief on the part of all those who regard Al Qaeda and NATO are irreconcilable enemies between whom no cooperation is possible. Instead, they reinforce the thesis which I have defended since the attacks of September 11, 2001, that Al Qaeda fighters are mercenaries of the service of the CIA [4].
Who is telling the truth?
For the past week, the Spanish royalist newspaper ABC has published a daily report by photographer Daniel Iriarte. This journalist is with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in the north of the country, right on the Turkish border. Iriarte champions the cause of the “revolution” and can never find words harsh enough against “Al-Assad regime.”
The Free Syrian Army is made up of more than 2 000 people, according to its political chief Colonel Riyadh al-Asaad, but of only a few hundred when listening to the Syrian authorities [5].
However, in the Saturday edition dated 17 December 2011, Daniel Iriarte describes an encounter that shocked him. While his FSA friends were taking him to a new hideout, he came across some foreign insurgents: three Libyans [6].
The first one among them was al-Mahdi Hatari, a Libyan who lived in Ireland before joining Al Qaeda. At the end of the Libyan war, he was named commander of the Tripoli Brigade, then number 2 of the Tripoli Military Council headed by Abdel Hakim Belhaj. He resigned from this function, according to some because of a dispute with the Transitional National Council, according to others because he wanted to go back to Ireland to join his Irish wife [7] The truth is that he headed for Syria.
Even stranger: a member of Al Qaeda was among the pro-Palestinian activists, in June of last year, on board the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara. Numerous secret service agents, especially US, had infiltrated the “Freedom Flotilla“ [8]. He was wounded and held prisoner for nine days in Israel.
Finally, during the Battle of Tripoli, al-Mahdi Harati commanded the Al Qaeda group that besieged and attacked the Rixos hotel, where I was staying with myVoltaire Network companions and the international press, and whose basement served as a shelter for the leaders of the Jamahiriya under the protection of the custody of Khamis Gaddafi [9]. According to the latter, Mahdi al-Harati was being briefed by the French officers on the ground.
The second Libyan that the Spanish photographer in the Syrian army is none other than Kikli Adem, a lieutenant of Abdel Hakim Belhaj. As for the third Libyan, nicknamed Fouad, Daniel Iriarte was not in a position to identify him.
Iriarte’s testimony dovetails with what the Arab anti-Syrian press has been claiming for weeks: the Free Syrian Army is overseen by at least 600 “volunteers” from Al Qaeda in Libya [10]. The entire operation is run by Abdel Hakim Belhaj in person with the help of the Erdogan government.
How can it be explained that a daily newspaper as anti-Assad as ABC has decided to publish the testimony of its special envoy, who sheds light on the nauseating methods employed by NATO and confirms the Syrian government’s thesis of armed destabilization? The fact is that for a week, certain advocates of the clash of civilizations have been riling against a set-up which includes Islamic extremists in a “free world” strategy.
Writing on CNBC Guest Blog [11], former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar revealed on 9 December 2011 that Abdel Hakim Belhaj was suspected of complicity in the attacks of 11 March 2004 in Madrid [12], an event that put an end to Aznar’s political career.
Mr. Aznar’s outing goes hand in hand with the intervention made by his friends from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the think tank headed by former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold [13]. They publicly voice their doubts about the validity of the current CIA strategy to place Islamists in power throughout North Africa. Their criticism is aimed against the secret society of the Muslim Brotherhood, but also against two Libyan figures: Abel Hakim Belhadj and his friend Sheikh Ali Al-Salibi. The latter is regarded as the new leader of Libya [14]. The two men are deemed to be the pawns of Qatar in the new Libya [15]. It was also Sheikh Salabi who distributed $ 2 billion of Qatari funds to help Al-Qaeda in Libya [16].
Thus the contradiction that was desperately kept hidden for the past decade returns to the surface: the mercenaries, formerly paid by Osama Bin Laden, have never stopped working in the service of US strategic interests since the first war in Afghanistan, including the period of the September 11 attacks. Yet they are portrayed by Western leaders as implacable enemies.
It is likely that the objections of Mr. Aznar and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs will be overridden by NATO, as were those raised by AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham. At the beginning of the war Libya, he was incensed at having to protect jihadists who had gone to slaughter GIs in Iraq.
Detached from reality, the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee (aka “Committee pursuant to resolution 1267″) and the US Department of State still have on their black list the organization of Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Sheik Salabi under its former label of Islamic Fighting Group in Libya. It would appear that is it the duty of every State to arrest these individuals if they enter their territory.
————————-
(hat tip: Infowars)
Advanced Space Based Weapons: ‘Rods from God’
Image: EndWar Wiki
by Shepard Ambellas
The Intel Hub
December 17, 2011
Steaming from the Rand Corporation (Think Tank) document published in 2002 entitled “Space Weapons, Earth Wars” the spaced based weapons platform ”Rods from God” is now one of many in operation.
The fact that this type weapon can decimate it’s target by way of stealth with kinetic force is impressive but creepy.
In principle, 20 foot long tungsten core rods 2 feet in diameter will drop out of the gravity well from space, spearing toward earth with pinpoint precision at 10,000 feet per second, hitting with the kinetic force of a nuclear weapon (with no explosion).
An excerpt from EndWar Wiki reads;
The kinetic kill vehicle launch platform consists of a satellite armed with 12 telephone pole sized Tungsten rods loaded into 12 launch tubes mounted on one end of the satellite . The satellite employs high efficiency photo-voltaic panels or “wings” to generate electricity directly from sunlight. The satellites are then placed in orbit and must be reloaded after each use, or de-orbited and a replacement launched. The current US system consists of an unknown number of such satellites, though the number is assumed to be more than one.
A POPSCI article excerpt reads;
The concept of kinetic-energy weapons has been around ever since the RAND Corporation proposed placing rods on the tips of ICBMs in the 1950s; the satellite twist was popularized by sci-fi writer Jerry Pournelle. Though the Pentagon won’t say how far along the research is, or even confirm that any efforts are underway, the concept persists. The “U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan,” published by the Air Force in November 2003, references “hypervelocity rod bundles” in its outline of future space-based weapons, and in 2002, another report from RAND, “Space Weapons, Earth Wars,” dedicated entire sections to the technology’s usefulness.
A New York Times articles except reads;
In an age of rogue regimes and pre-emptive war, states developing clandestine nuclear programs know better than to leave them in plain sight. Anxious to ward off an American or Israeli attack, Iran, for example, appears to have buried its uranium-enrichment halls under 30 feet of earth and concrete. No doubt, canny proliferators will soon dig even deeper and better-armored holes.
As more, advanced space based weapons platforms are developed there will be new threats that the “powers that be” are now busy creating, pushing fear amongst the general populace (in a psychological warfare-style manner).
In the cold war era — kids in school were forced to participate in ’nuclear bomb drills’ and were instructed to duck and cover under their desks, traumatizing the students mentally in a PsyOp conditioning program.
This technology dovetails with the Boston Dynamics ground based FEMA/DARPA contracted “Big Dog” and a new breed of hunter seeker robots that could be used against civilians in times of disarray as 2012 (the year of truth) approaches.
Video: North Koreans Weeping Hysterically Over The Death Of Kim Jong-Il
by Hyscience
Before It’s News
December 19, 2011
The ruthless, Stalinist dictator of a starved slave state is dead, and it appears that the people are incredibly sad.
Here, a tearful TV anchor weeps as she announces the death of Kim Jong-il.
Tears over a ruthless, Stalinist, dictator that starved to death 2 million of his own people while he lived in luxury and built nuclear bombs? If all of this is genuine, North Korea is a much sicker society than it’s proven itself to be up to now and it’s clear that an entire people can be brainwashed.
[Potent News Editor’s note: According to this other article,
“Of course it must be remembered that if you do not mourn the “dear leader” properly, you and your entire family could get shipped off to a prison camp.
Seriously.
In North Korea, if authorities even suspect that you are not thinking the right thing, you and your entire extended family could be sent to a gulag for the rest of your life.”]
Crushing the Disinformation Surrounding Indefinite Detention of Americans Under the NDAA
By Madison Ruppert
The Intel Hub
December 17, 2011
Today Glenn Greenwald, writing for Salon, published a piece which is required reading for anyone who has been keeping up with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Fiscal Year 2012, especially those of us who have been arguing with proponents of the bill and others who do not understand the detainee provisions therein.
I will be going over Greenwald’s points in this article, as they cannot be emphasized enough and are all based in the ugly reality we see unfolding before us, unlike the claims made by those contending that the bill does not allow indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial.
The indefinite detention sections, contained within the NDAA along with other strange sections like removing the ban on bestiality and sodomy for members of the armed forces, and Obama’s support for it has drawn intense criticism from some somewhat unlikely sources.
For instance, Human Rights Watch called Obama’s refusal to veto the detainee bill “a historic tragedy for rights,” and characterized the NDAA as “ill-conceived.”
Similarly, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized Obama for backing down on his veto threat, although as I have previously outlined, it wouldn’t really make a difference even if he did veto it.
If Obama actually followed through and vetoed the bill, the veto could simply be overridden by both chambers and they have far more than the 2/3majority required to override a Presidential veto.
“If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill.
We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial,” said the director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, Laura Murphy.
Even the New York Times – hardly a publication known for criticizing the Obama administration and Democrats in general – published a heated editorial in which it is written that Obama’s decision to back down on the hollow veto threat “reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency.”
The editorial rightly points out, “To start with, this bill was utterly unnecessary. Civilian prosecutors and federal courts have jailed hundreds of convicted terrorists, while the tribunals have convicted a half-dozen.”
There are some disturbingly prevalent myths about the NDAA that I see crop up in emails and in the comment section on End the Lie and other places that post my articles, all of which Greenwald strikes down with apparent ease.
The main three falsehoods I see parroted are: “The NDAA doesn’t actually codify indefinite detention”; “The NDAA doesn’t widen the definition of what the ‘War on Terror’ is as was previously outlined in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)”; and “American citizens cannot be detained indefinitely under the NDAA.”
All of these are demonstrably untrue, as I will show in language that anyone can understand. If, after reading this, you still do not understand that we are all in danger of being locked up indefinitely without charge or trial under this bill, please do not hesitate to contact me and substantiate your position.
To first address the codification of indefinite detention, we look to the conference report which accompanied H.R. 1540, specifically the section on detainee provisions, found here.
On page three of the PDF, under Subtitle D – Counterterrorism, Section 1021, which is page 654 of the original document, we read starting on line 19, “The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”
How any sane individual could read, “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities,” and think that this does not explicitly codify indefinite detention is beyond comprehension.
I’m not sure how they could possibly put it in a more blatant fashion. There is absolutely no arguing that this allows for indefinite detention “until the end of the hostilities” which will likely never happen, as perpetual conflict is what the entire “War on Terror” is about.
“Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision,” Greenwald rightly contends.
I would love to see someone argue this and if you’re that person, please do not hesitate to email me. I very well might publish your rebuttal and my response, if you agree to it.
Greenwald aptly points out that both the Obama and Bush regimes have repeatedly argued that the 2001 AUMF tacitly gives them the power to indefinitely detain and quite unfortunately, “post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view.”
These precedents allow the language to be inserted in the NDAA that says that nothing in the NDAA will expand the 2001 AUMF, which is what proponents often point to in defense of their position that it will not be used to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.
In reality, the interpretations used by the Executive branch and the so-called justice system are “already so much broader than its language provides,” according to Greenwald.
This is exactly the same as the so-called “secret PATRIOT Act” which was exposed by Senator Ron Wyden in late May of this year.
This is not truly a secret PATRIOT Act, but instead is a classified interpretation of the law which “cannot be publicly assessed or challenged,” according to Wired.
What makes proponents of the NDAA think that the government will suddenly change course and begin to interpret the law in a straight-forward manner which we can all understand and scrutinize?
I contend that it is naïve, if not outright ignorant, to believe that the NDAA’s interpretation – specifically the detainee provisions – will be interpreted in our favor.
There is simply no indication that this is the case and it would buck the disturbing trend established by the government of the United States of establishing laws and interpreting them in ways which we are not aware of.
The important fact to take home is that this is the first time that indefinite detention has been explicitly codified in a statute since the Internal Security Act of 1950 during the McCarthy “red scare” era.
The next myth is that the NDAA does not expand the definition of the “War on Terror” as previously outlined in the 2001 AUMF and like the other fallacies surrounding this bill, it is easily proven to be false.
Under the 2001 AUMF, the scope of the so-called War on Terror was much smaller than what is outlined in the NDAA and it was much more restricted in who it authorized the use of force on.
Under Section 2 of the 2001 AUMF we read,
“(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
As you can see, the authorization is relatively quite limited compared to the new language which, on top of the guidelines in the AUMF, adds, “(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
The glaring part of this section is that it is wildly ambiguous and leaves the door open to lump a wide range of people under the label of “covered persons” which were previously not (at least explicitly) covered by the AUMF.
A major issue here is that the Pentagon actually considers protesting to be an act of “low-level terrorism,” or at least they did until they were exposed for having a question on an employee training exam for the Department of Defense which asked, “Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?” the correct answer for which was, “Protests.”
Once it became public knowledge that they were demonizing people who exercise their most essential right to free speech, the Department of Defense removed the question, but it does not negate the disturbing fact that they actually included such a question on an official exam.
So, what prevents the government from saying protesters, like those involved in the Occupy movement, are terrorists who can be indefinitely detained without charge or trial?
Unfortunately, absolutely nothing is stopping them.
Another troubling aspect is the term “belligerent” which is similarly ambiguous and flexible and was likely specifically chosen for that reason.
A professor of law at Seton Hill and specialist in detainee law, Jonathan Hafetz, explained just how dangerous the ambiguity of the new language is in an interview with Glenn Greenwald earlier this month:
“One though could imagine some very frightening scenarios. Could the military arrest and detain a person arrested at his home in say Cleveland, Ohio, for writing a $20,000 check to a group that supported AQ? Or a doctor in New Jersey who sent medical supplies to an organization in Ethiopia, for example, that provided humanitarian aid to a group in that country that was deemed to be affiliated with AQ? The answer is probably yes, under the most aggressive views of the [the new bill].”
If that doesn’t upset you, I don’t know what will.
Now we come to the most important myth of all, the belief that American citizens are wholly protected from the detainee provisions of the NDAA.
Greenwald says that the bill, and specifically the detainee provisions outlined therein, is “purposely muddled” in order to leave plenty of wiggle room in how it can be used.
One of the excerpts often quoted in an attempt to debunk the fact that this can be applied to U.S. citizens is, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
As with the rest of the NDAA, we have to carefully examine the language utilized in this passage.
The section it is referring to is section 1021 which we discussed earlier, and the most important aspect of this excerpt is the stipulation, “Nothing in this section” as it clearly limits it to that section and that section alone.
As I discussed in my previous coverage, this section, part of which is also included in the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, only protects you if you’re an American citizen captured within the United States.
Anywhere else, the protection is null and void, and under the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, all that would be required to nullify that small protection would be an Act of Congress.
Given the fact that they overwhelmingly voted to betray the Constitution and our most essential rights, thus proving that every single person who voted for the NDAA is nothing short of a traitor, I do not believe it is reasonable to think that they would never remove that minuscule protection.
Robert Chesney of Lawfare argues that there is still a lingering ambiguity in the language as to whether Section 1021 (e) applies to citizens, although to me it seems relatively clear.
Now we get to the most problematic and contentious aspect of the NDAA, Section 1022.
This section deals with any individual determined by the President to be “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” that “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”
For those who fall into this category, it is required – unless the President issues a waiver – that the person be detained “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.”
The problem here is that the definition of who this section covers does not in fact exclude American citizens or state any requirement that the individual be a foreigner.
This is where many people get confused or mislead by proponents of the bill: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to the citizens of the United States.”
This does not prevent American citizens being held in military custody indefinitely without charge or trial; it only says that it is not required.
There is a massive difference here which cannot be marginalized or ignored. If they meant to make it so no American citizens could be indefinitely detained by the military, they would have made it explicit.
However, they clearly did not and as Greenwald points out, “it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody.”
This cannot be explained away like many are attempting to do, as the language of legislation is very carefully chosen.
If our so-called Representatives truly sought to protect us from being held without charge or trial by the military, they would prohibit it in wholly unambiguous language.
This is clearly not the case and we simply must accept that our government is actively working against the American people and the Constitution of the United States. There is really no way to get around this fact at this point.
I think Greenwald puts it in just about the most straightforward way humanly possible in writing, “or foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”
It would be nice to think that this means that we are exempt, but it simply is untrue and one would be delusional in assuming such.
As I have done time and time again, Greenwald points to the fact that the amendment proposed by Senator Feinstein which would explicitly exempt American citizens was struck down as evidence that we are not protected by this section.
As I previously mentioned, Senator Lindsey Graham said on the floor of the Senate that this bill does nothing to change the status quo, however, this is explicitly codifying the ability of the military to indefinitely hold Americans without charge or trial – something which hasn’t been done since the heyday of McCarthyist paranoia.
Even the New York Times’ editorial has to point out that the bill includes “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”
This is entrenching the American police state like never more, and as the editorial rightly point out, this is going to be here for the long run.
The questions that remain after assessing all of these disturbing facts are: what’s next? What can we do? How do we stop this and return America to the principles of justice and liberty?
Unfortunately, I don’t have any satisfactory answers to these questions up my sleeve at the moment. I would truly appreciate the input from all of my readers so please do not hesitate to email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com and if you give me permission I might utilize your ideas in an upcoming piece on solutions to this horrific crisis we have found ourselves in.
This article also appeared at End the Lie
