Saturday, November 8, 2014

The Ebola ‘epidemic’ has all the makings of a false flag

Scientist in full protective hazmat suitPersonal Liberty Digest 

It appears increasingly likely that the Ebola “epidemic” is a false flag episode that is being perpetrated upon the American people and the world.

False flags take many forms but serve one main purpose: to grow and strengthen central authority (government) and remove liberties from the people under the altruistic mantra of keeping them “safe.”

That is not to say that they don’t serve other purposes as well, as the Ebola “crisis” clearly does.

So far, Ebola is affecting only people in a handful of West African nations: Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria (plus one case in Senegal and two cases in America). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims there are 13,703 total cases, but only 7,637 are confirmed Ebola. The CDC attributes 4,922 total deaths to Ebola out of a total population of 195.3 million people in the main four African nations mentioned.

For comparison, there are more than 110,000 Americans killed every year by adverse reactions to FDA-approved drugs, and as many 440,000 annual preventable U.S. deaths due to medical errors.

The CDC claims as many as 49,000 Americans die each year from the flu (though it admits in the fine print that no more than 8.5 percent of those are actually flu-related). Yet fewer than 5,000 Ebola deaths in Africa is a sign of an existential crisis, we are told.

These countries and their people are suffering from decades of war and the resulting environmental pollution, poor sanitation, malnutrition, dirty water and little or no infrastructure — conditions that are all detrimental to human health and immunity. There are also reports that the U.S. has biowarfare labs in the region, that manufacturing plants are dumping toxic chemicals into the water supply and soil, and that agencies like the Red Cross are intentionally infecting people under the guise of vaccination programs.

Whether those 7,637 or 13,703 — or whatever figure health authorities pull from their hats — contracted a disease called Ebola is pure speculation, at best. The inventor of the PCR test for Ebola says the test is not adequate for diagnosing Ebola. The Department of Defense’s Joint Project Manager Medical Countermeasures Systems manual, produced Aug. 14 for military units sent into the Ebola zones, says so as well.

In other words, even those 7,637 “confirmed” Ebola cases were confirmed on the basis of an inadequate test and based on symptoms that mimic other ailments and, therefore, may or may not be attributable to Ebola. So to say that Ebola cases have crossed the 13,000 is fearmongering propaganda.

Officials from government, its affiliated organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are giving mixed signals on the disease’s infectiousness. We are simultaneously told that it is highly contagious and that it is not; that it can be acquired via airborne exposure and that it cannot; that it can live on surfaces and that it cannot; that it can spread on public transportation but it cannot be contracted there; that people who have been exposed to it should be quarantined and that they should not; that it can incubate for 21 days or that it can for 42; and the list of discrepancies, absurdities and deceptions goes on. Because there is so much misinformation, disinformation and deception from the so-called authorities, it’s little wonder that Ebola is creating fear among the people.

The U.S. government’s response to Ebola is irrational. While claiming that the disease should be isolated in West Africa in order to combat it, the State Department announced plans to bring Ebola-infected healthcare works to the U.S. for treatment — even those who are not American — at a cost of $200,000 to $300,000 each.

It claims that U.S. citizens and foreigners traveling to the U.S. from Ebola-affected countries cannot and should not be quarantined — and pushed back against governors who attempted to quarantine possible Ebola-exposed travelers — yet it quarantines in Italy U.S. military personnel returning from the Ebola “Hot Zones.” It’s almost as if the Obama regime wants to facilitate the spread of the disease.

Four British Jihadists Attempt to Assassinate Queen Elizabeth 

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs 

The response to this assassination attempt will be to reassure their misinformed populations that this has nothing to do with Islam. The UK refuses to recognize or probe why so many British Muslims are flocking to wage jihad in the cause of Islam. Worse, they make more suicidal concessions to this genocidal ideology, hoping to satiate the beast.

The day before yesterday, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said he hopes to see a British Muslim become prime minister in his lifetime. Speaking at the GG2 awards, which celebrates Asian [Muslim] achievements, he added that there were “too few people from ethnic minorities in top positions.”

Culture Secretary Sajid Javid was named the most influential Muslim in the UK.
Note to David...


Raymond Ibrahim: Exposed: Decade-Old Plan to Create Islamic State—and Obama Helped

/ Jihad Watch
Although the birth of the Islamic state and the herald of the caliphate are often regarded as some of 2014’s “big shockers,” they were foretold in striking detail and with an accurate timeline by an al-Qaeda insider nearly one decade ago.

On August 12, 2005, Spiegel Online International published an article titled “The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaeda Really Wants.”  Written by Yassin Musharbash, the article was essentially a review of a book written by Fouad Hussein, a Jordanian journalist with close access to al-Qaeda and its affiliates, including the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who pioneered the videotaping of beheadings “to strike terror into the hearts” of infidels (Koran 3:151).

As Hussein explained in the introduction of his book Al Zarqawi: Al Qaeda’s Second Generation: “I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaeda members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future.”

And in fact the book details the master plan of al-Qaeda—in its “second generation” manifestation known as the “Islamic State” which follows much of Zarqawi’s modus operandi—to resurrect a caliphate.  This plan is sufficiently outlandish that Yassin Musharbash, the author of the Spiegel article reviewing Hussein’s book, repeatedly casts doubt on its feasibility.  Thus al-Qaeda’s plan is “proof both of the terrorists’ blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness”; there is “no way” al-Qaeda can follow the plan “step by step”; “the idea that al-Qaeda could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd”; and the following “scenario should be judged skeptically.”

Yet it is all the more remarkable that much of this plan—especially those phases dismissed as infeasible by Musharbash (four and five)—have come to pass.

In what follows, I reproduce the seven phases of al-Qaeda’s master plan as presented in Musharbash’s nearly ten-year-old article (in bullet points and italics, bold for emphasis), with my commentary interspersed for context.  Phases four and five are of particular importance as they describe the goals for recent times, much of which have come to fruition according to plan.

An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps
  • The First Phase Known as “the awakening”—this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby“awakening” Muslims. “The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaeda as very successful,” writes Hussein. “The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target.” The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard “everywhere.”

I am a conservative. I believe in the truth of traditional values, of limited government, and free markets.

And I believe in personal freedom and that it is not possible without all the above.

Our country has been going in the opposite direction and things, predictably, have not been going well.

The American people spoke last Tuesday, and I am happy with what they had to say.

But I am also happy that we have, once again, proof that America is still a free country. That when the American people are not happy, they can vote for change.

This is a great thing.

But best is when we use this precious gift of freedom to learn and to grow.

Freedom means making inevitable mistakes, learning from them, changing and improving.

This points to two watershed events of this election. Election of the first black Republican woman to the US House of Representatives, Mia Love of Utah, and the first black Senator from the South elected since reconstruction, Tim Scott of South Carolina.

Why should I raise the issue of race when both these newly elected members of congress have made it a point to reject race as an issue in their campaigns?
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest deserves a raise. It took Baghdad Bob levels of chutzpah to stand at the White House Briefing room podium yesterday and utter the following sentences:
I do think that there is ample data to indicate that a lot of the policies that the President himself has advocated are strongly supported by those who participated in the election; that from support for a path to citizenship for immigrants who have been in this country for an extended period of time, to the President’s handling of things like Ebola or ISIL, that there’s strong support for what the President has pursued.
Now, these results are notable for a couple of reasons. One is, as you pointed out, that the electorate skewed Republican, that more Republicans showed up. But yet according to the findings of these exit polls, there is strong support for some of the priorities and policies that the President has carried out. 
For the moment let's set aside Earnest's implication that Obama should only be accountable to Democratic electorates and that he has every right to ignore Republican ones.

Instead, let's look closer at his claim that Obama's plan to give illegal immigrants a "path to citizenship" found "strong support" in Tuesday's exit polls. Here is the actual question from the survey: "Most Illegal Immigrants Working in U.S. Should Be" either "Offered legal status" or "Deported?"

It is true that 57 percent of voters said "most" "working" illegal immigrants should be offered legal status, but look carefully for the word completely missing from the question... "citizenship. That is a kinda key component of Obama's "path to citizenship" policy.

The exit poll question also has other flaws that make it a inaccurate stand in for Obama's preferred immigration solutions. It says nothing about Obama's impending plan to grant millions of illegal immigrants, whether they are working or not, legal status through executive fiat. And, more importantly, it asserts a false choice between legal status and deportation.

Image: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear GOP Challenge to Obamacare Subsidies
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear GOP Challenge to Obamacare Subsidies 

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a challenge to the subsidies that are a linchpin of President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, accepting a case that suddenly puts the law under a new legal cloud. 
Two years after upholding much of the law by a single vote, the justices today said they will hear a Republican-backed appeal targeting tax credits that have helped more than 4 million people afford insurance.

A ruling blocking those credits might unravel the law, making other provisions ineffective and potentially destabilizing insurance markets in much of the country. The high court’s decision to hear the case comes days before the start of the law’s second open-enrollment season Nov. 15. A decision will come by June.

The justices will consider an appeal filed by four Virginia residents seeking to block the subsidies in 36 states. The appeal says the Obama administration is engaging in a “gross distortion” of the law’s wording by granting billions of dollars in tax credits to people in those states.

The appeal, filed by Washington lawyer Michael Carvin on behalf of four Virginia residents, said immediate review was “imperative” given the money at stake and the steps being taken by employers, consumers and insurers to comply with the measure.

The law, intended to provide coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, has been attacked by Republicans since it was passed on a party-line vote in 2010.

Today, November 8th at 11am to 1pm on RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on CPR Worldwide Media, Craig and Diane will be discussing the newest developments coming out of Ferguson, Missouri as we await Monday's Grand Jury verdict. Also being discussed will be the ramifications of Tuesday's election, as well as other news of the day.

Hope you can tune in...
And chat with us at...