Reminder: You Don’t Want 5G OR 4G Small Cells Installed Near Where People and Animals Spend Long Periods of Time.


29-07-19 07:35:00,

By B.N. Frank

There is increasing opposition to 5G small cell technology installation for many good reasons.

  1. The Telecom Industry has admitted they have no scientific evidence that exposure to 5G is biologically or environmentally safe.
  2. Plenty of researchers say it isn’t safe (see 1, 2, 3).
  3. Meteorologists, NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Navy, security experts, and utility companies have also issued warnings about installing 5G for reasons other than health risks.

This doesn’t mean that installing 4G small cells everywhere and boosting 4G levels is safer.  OMG NO!  There is research that proves 4G is biologically and environmentally harmful as well.  The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other health experts have warned that kids are more vulnerable than adults to ALL sources of cell phone and wireless radiation.  In fact, there is still no scientifically determined “safe” level of exposure for children or pregnant women.  Animals are affected by exposure too.  It seems that everything living is.

Register Now for The 5G Crisis: Awareness & Accountability Summit. Online and FREE from August 26 – September 1, 2019.

Thanks to Nicholas Gonzalez Foundation for posting an article written by Camilla Rees, MBA which provides more details about why we should be paying attention to all wireless antenna installation – not just 5G:

Is 5G the Problem? Or Is ‘Antenna Densification’?

Next generation telecommunications technology, called 5G, is in the news constantly these days. But there is plenty of confusion about what it involves, and whether it has even arrived.

Several of the ‘promises’ of this technology have been called into serious question, and much of what we hear about 5G wonders is considered hype. There is even an online promotion circulating suggesting 5G will ‘cure cancer’, when the radiation emitted by the coming 5G (and 4G) antennas densely placed throughout neighborhoods in very large numbers instead will greatly increase cancer and other serious diseases.

 » Lees verder

Reminder: Neocons ADMIT They Will Lie Us Into War : The Corbett Report


19-05-19 06:31:00,

Now that mustachioed super villain John Bolton is in the driver’s seat of America’s foreign policy, an old video of the arch-neocon admitting he would lie to the public to achieve his goals is making the rounds once again.

Here’s the money quote for those who missed it: “If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it.”

The example he gives to flesh out his point is relatively uncontroversial. “I don’t think we’re often faced with that difficulty, but would I lie about where the D-Day invasion was going to take place to deceive the Germans, you’d better believe it.”

But is that where the principle of knowingly lying to the public in the name of “national security” begins and ends? Not revealing the dates and locations of planned military operations? Or do you think that someone like John Bolton and his neocon friends just might use this idea of lying to achieve his goals a bit more liberally?

In fact, we don’t even have to wonder about this point, and nor should we be shocked in the least that a neocon like Bolton—who is now openly lusting after regime change in Iran and Venezuela—would profess his allegiance to the “noble lie.” All it takes is a little examination of the historical roots of the neocons to see that this has always been there openly admitted policy.

So what is the “noble lie” and what does it have to do with the founding father of the neocon movement? Find out in this week’s edition of of The Corbett Report Subscriber.

For full access to the subscriber newsletter, and to support this website, please become a member.

The Corbett Report Subscriber

vol 9 issue 18 (May 18, 2019)

by James Corbett
May 18, 2019

Now that mustachioed super villain John Bolton is in the driver’s seat of America’s foreign policy, an old video of the arch-neocon admitting he would lie to the public to achieve his goals is making the rounds once again.

 » Lees verder

Iran Sanctions: A Reminder Of How America Militarized The Financial System

Iran Sanctions: A Reminder Of How America Militarized The Financial System

15-05-18 07:17:00,

Authored by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute,

Only CNN was surprised by Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he was pulling the United States out of the Iran Deal negotiated by his predecessor. Following the same failed approach of the last Republican administration, the President opted for confrontation with the Iranian regime rather than uplifting more moderate factions within the country through trade. The decision has already increased tensions in the volatile region, with Iran and Israel exchanging fire in Syria.

Meanwhile European leaders are meeting Iranian officials to try to design a way to bypass new American sanctions. Others have vocally attacked Trump’s actions and attacked the US playing the role of “economic policeman.”

As French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said after the decision:

Do we want to be vassals who obey decisions taken by the United States while clinging to the hem of their trousers? Or do we want to say we have our economic interests, we consider we will continue to do trade with Iran?

According to reports, European officials are looking at a few different options to help salvage their economic relationship with Iran.

One is by reviving “blocking statues” such as the ones the EU threatened in response to sanctions on Cuba, Libya, and Iran in the 1990s. The mechanism works similar to the anti-commandeering doctrine, ordering European officials to refuse to comply with US sanctions. As Reuters notes, blocking statues have “never been used and is seen by European governments more as a political weapon.” They were successful in the past because the Clinton Administration simply backed down, something that seems unlikely with President Trump.

The other is to establish new financial institutions with no connection to the US financial system. Iran has already made the euro the official reporting currency for foreign exchange, so on the surface this seems like a viable alternative.

The problem European decision makers face, however, is that the US has gone to great lengths to militarize the banking industry in recent years.

As Richard Goldberg noted at Foreign Policy:

[In 2010] Congress passed a new law leveraging America’s greatest strength against the fulcrum of global commerce with Iran: financial transactions.  » Lees verder