THE COURTS CAN KILL YOUR CHILD

ABOVE, BABY CHARLIE GARD: HE DIES TODAY, SAY HIS PARENTS, AND THE COURT WHICH RULED THAT HE MUST DIE WOULD NOT EVEN ALLOW THEM TO TAKE THE 10-MONTH-OLD HOME TO DIE.
In a post on Facebook on Thursday, the couple said they were spending their “last precious hours” with their son. “We’re not allowed to choose if our son lives and we’re not allowed to choose when or where Charlie dies,” they wrote.
“We promised our little boy every single day that we would take him home,” they told Mail Online. “We want to give him a bath at home, put him in a cot which he has never slept in, but we are now being denied that,” Gard said. “We know what day our son is going to die but don’t get a say in how that will happen.  Not only are we not allowed to take our son to an expert hospital to save his life, we also can’t choose how or when our son dies.” 

THE COURT DETERMINED THAT  "IT IS IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST" THAT HE BE KILLED.
THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.
WHAT'S "BEST" FOR CHARLIE IS DEATH.

IT IS THE STUFF OF NIGHTMARES...YOUR CHILD IS ON LIFE SUPPORT, FIGHTING TO LIVE,AND THEN A COURT DECIDES (S)HE MUST DIE.

THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE SNOPES INTERNET STORIES, THIS IS REALITY.
A COURT CAN DECIDE THE FATE OF A CHILD...YOUR CHILD, MINE, ANYONE'S... AND THE PARENTS WITHOUT THE FINANCIAL MEANS TO FIGHT FOR THEIR CHILD IN THE COURT SYSTEM HAVE TO STAND ASIDE AND SEE THAT LIFE TAKEN FROM THEM.

HOW CAN OUR CHILDREN BE PLACED IN SUCH JEOPARDY?
A FEW "EXPERTS" DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT "THE BEST INTEREST" OF A CHILD WILL BE SERVED BY PROLONGING LIFE VIA ARTIFICIAL MEANS, OR IF "ALLOWING" (NO, FORCING!) THE CHILD TO DIE BY REMOVING LIFE SUPPORT, WITHHOLDING FOOD, WATER, MEDICATIONS, TREATMENTS, IS THE ONLY LOGICAL AND EXPECTED OUTCOME FOR AN INFANT, LIKE CHARLIE GARD, OR AN OLDER CHILD .

AS I WROTE IN MAY, 2016, UNICEF, A UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION, WANTS EUTHANASIA OF CHILDREN TO BE ALLOWED, "SAME AS FOR ADULTS", BUT SUGGESTS THERE NEED NOT BE A "TERMINAL ILLNESS" INVOLVED, AND THAT EUTHANASIA FOR THE MENTALLY ILL SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED.

By extending its euthanasia law to minors in 2014, Belgium has fueled the international debate on this issue.  

THE UNITED KINGDOM'S COURT TAKES UP THE TORCH TO ALLOW THE KILLING OF CHILDREN.

For ten months, Charlie Gard has been living in the intensive-care unit at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London.

Charlie, born last August, suffers from an inherited disease called infantile onset encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, generally referred to as “MDDS.” The disease is extraordinarily rare: At present, there are only 16 known cases worldwide. Most patients who suffer from it die in early infancy. Charlie is unable to breathe unaided, suffers from seizures, and has severe brain damage.

In March, his doctors decided that there was nothing more they could do for him, and they recommended that his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, withdraw his ventilator.
The parents refused, on the grounds that an untried experimental treatment was available in the United States.
The hospital, in accordance with British law, applied to the courts to forestall further treatment.

In April, the High Court found for the doctors and against the parents.

In May, the Court of Appeal upheld the initial decision.

In early June, the Supreme Court agreed.
And this week, the European Court of Human Rights — the last court of jurisdiction — refused to intervene.
Whenever they see fit to do so, the doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital can now remove Charlie’s life support.

THE COURTS TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE PARENTS TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEIR CHILD.
Successive courts in the United Kingdom and in Europe simultaneously found that Connie Yates and Chris Gard had devoted themselves unhesitatingly to their son’s welfare for ten months, and also that Yates and Gard could not be trusted to act in their son’s best interests.

"COULD NOT BE TRUSTED"?
THAT'S ALL IT TAKES?
YES, THAT IS INDEED ALL IT TAKES.

According to the Honourable Mr. Justice Nicholas Francis of the High Court’s Family Division, who authored the decision subsequently upheld by the higher courts, death is “in Charlie’s best interests.” There was no “scientific basis” for believing that Charlie would respond positively to the experimental American treatment; meanwhile, there is “unanimity among the experts from whom I have heard that nucleoside therapy cannot reverse structural brain damage.”

“If,” wrote Justice Francis, “Charlie’s damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now?”
It was “with a heavy heart,” the judge said, that he sided with the doctors. Charlie should be permitted “to die with dignity.”

"DIGNITY"?
WHAT DIGNITY IS THERE IN KILLING AN INFANT WHO CAN'T EVEN RUN AWAY FROM THOSE WHO WANT TO KILL HIM, WHO CAN'T EVEN CRY OUT, "PLEASE, DON'T!" ?

In conclusion, Justice Francis praised the parents he had just overruled: “Most importantly of all, I want to thank Charlie’s parents for their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf, but more than anything to pay tribute to their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born.”

IF HE THOUGHT THEY WERE "BRAVE AND DIGNIFIED", WHY DID HE REFUSE TO LET THEM TAKE THEIR CHILD HOME, AT LEAST, AND WHY DID HE SAY THEY WEREN'T FIT TO MAKE A DECISION FOR HIM TO LIVE ON?

PROBABLY TODAY, THEY WILL KILL LITTLE CHARLIE GARD.        

COURT SYSTEMS IN OTHER NATIONS ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE "ASSISTED SUICIDE" FOR CHILDREN (AND ADULTS) FOR THINGS AS NON-LIFE-THREATENING AS ANXIETY AND AUTISM?

In Belgium and the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, assisted suicide is now an acceptable remedy for people suffering not just from terminal illnesses but from depression, autism, and anorexia.

THE NEW YORKER, JUNE 22, 2015: THE DEATH TREATMENT
Belgium was the second country in the world, after the Netherlands, to decriminalize euthanasia; it was followed by Luxembourg, in 2009, and, this year, by Canada and Colombia.

Switzerland has allowed assisted suicide since 1942.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that citizens have legitimate concerns about prolonged deaths in institutional settings, but in 1997 it ruled that death is not a constitutionally protected right, leaving questions about assisted suicide to be resolved by each state.

Within months of the ruling, Oregon passed a law that allows doctors to prescribe lethal drugs for patients who have less than six months to live. In 2008, Washington adopted a similar law; Montana decriminalized assisted suicide the year after; and Vermont legalized it in 2013.

A recent study in the British Medical Journal found that only half of euthanasia cases in Flanders had been reported to the Federal Control and Evaluation Commission. There were no repercussions for failing to report euthanasia deaths to the commission, a situation likely aided by the fact that nearly half of the sixteen members on the commission are affiliated with right-to-die associations.

IN CANADA, THE MENTALLY ILL WILL SOON BE AFFORDED ASSISTED SUICIDE, THANKS TO THEIR LEGAL SYSTEM.
APRIL 20, 2017
Canadian legislators may soon pass a law extending the right to physician assistance in dying, also known as physician-assisted suicide, to the mentally ill.
The possibility of such a move, which would bring Canadian policy somewhat into line with Dutch and Belgian policies, stems from a 2015 decision by the nation’s highest court that mentally competent Canadian adults suffering “intolerably and enduringly” from a physical ailment have the right to a doctor’s help in dying. Since that decision, Canadian lawmakers have been working to revise their statutes so they conform to the high court’s ruling.

THE U.S. GETS INVOLVED IN "EUTHANIZING" THE MENTALLY ILL...

The debate is also raging south of Canada. The Discovery Institute’s Smith said that in California a person committed to a state psychiatric hospital can petition to be released for assisted suicide. He sees it as an example where the extension of assisted suicide to the mentally ill makes no sense.

“You have people who are certifiably mentally ill,” Smith said, “to the point where they’re involuntarily hospitalized, having access to euthanasia.”PAD [physician-assisted suicide] is permissible in Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Vermont, plus the District of Columbia.

“PAD is only lawful in those five states if the legal drugs are prescribed by a physician in accordance with all the safeguards,” he said, adding that about 20 states are considering PAD laws.PAD FOR THE MENTALLY ILL... "The people whom modern science can’t help.”

WHO IS "MENTALLY ILL"?
ANYONE DECLARED SO BY "MEDICAL EXPERTS" WITH OR WITHOUT COURT ASSISTANCE ON THE RULING.
WHO ARE THOSE WHOM "MODERN SCIENCE CAN'T HELP"?
ALL OF US WHO REJECT THE "HELP" OF MODERN SCIENCE AND/OR SEEK ALTERNATIVE HELP, ALL WHOM MODERN SCIENCE SAYS THEY CAN'T HELP, AND INFANTS, AND SMALL CHILDREN WHO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SAY-SO ABOUT THESE DECISIONS WORLDWIDE.
CHILDREN LIKE CHARLIE GARD.

WHEN AND HOW DID WE COME TO DEVALUE, TO NEGATE THE WORTH OF A CHILD''S LIFE?

ROE V. WADE
WHAT IF A PARENT, THE FATHER OF THE UNBORN CHILD, HAD APPEARED IN THIS CASE AND WANTED HIS CHILD TO LIVE?
WHAT IF HE HAD OFFERED TO REAR THE CHILD HIMSELF?
THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN, BUT IF IT HAD, SINCE THE MOTHER DID NOT WANT TO ALLOW THIS,
THE MOTHER "WON" AND THE FATHER WOULD HAVE LOST, AND, CERTAINLY, THE UNBORN CHILD ALSO LOST...WAS KILLED...AGAIN, BY THE COURT.

SINCE THEN, IN AMERICA, ABOUT 60 MILLION FETUSES HAVE BEEN "TERMINATED", WHETHER OR NOT THE FATHER AGREED WITH THE DECISION OF THE MOTHER.
THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM BASICALLY REMOVED ANY RIGHT THE FATHER MAY CLAIM TO SEE HIS CHILD BORN.

IT IS MY OPINION THAT, HAD THEIR BEEN A VOCAL, HARD-FIGHTING FATHER SEEKING TO PRESERVE HIS CHILD'S LIFE IN THIS CASE, AND IF THE COURT HAD SIDED WITH THE FATHER, SOME FEMINISTS WOULD STILL BE STONING JUDGES.

TODAY, IN NON-LIFE-THREATENING SITUATIONS, WHEN ONE PARENT VALUES LIFE AND THE OTHER DOES NOT, HOW CAN A COURT OF LAW HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY THAT ONE PARENT'S IDEOLOGY, BELIEFS, WISHES OVERRIDE THE OTHER PARENT'S?
IF THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER IS NOT IN JEOPARDY, WHY DON'T COURTS CONSIDER THE LIFE AND RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN CHILD, WHO HAS NO VOICE, NO CHOICE?

HIDDEN FACTS THE MEDIA DID NOT REPORT AT THE TIME
The ruling rested on incredibly shaky legal reasoning, as the seven justices in the majority manufactured a mysterious “right to privacy,” discovered in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment, to establish a woman’s right to choose abortion. In addition, in the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun found that “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” plausibly the most flawed legal argument since the dehumanizing decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

THE COURT RULED THAT THE UNBORN ARE NOT 'PERSONS', EVEN THOUGH ANYONE WHO KILLS A PREGNANT WOMAN IS CHARGED WITH DUAL HOMICIDE/DOUBLE-MURDER IF BOTH MOTHER AND UNBORN DIE, OR WITH MURDER OF THE UNBORN IF ONLY THE FETUS DIES.

“The word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn,” Justice Blackmun wrote, although states may acquire “at some point in time” of a pregnancy an interest in the “potential human life” that the fetus represents, to permit regulation. It is that interest, the court said, that permits states to prohibit abortion after the fetus has developed the capacity to survive.

Roe exemplifies the worst of legal procedure, both in the lies concocted on behalf of the U.S. abortion industry and in the contortions that Blackmun devised to justify the Court’s appallingly undemocratic decision, one that paved the way for the legalized murder of nearly 60 million unborn children.
WHAT UNREAD, BIASED, HYSTERICAL AMERICANS DO NOT COMPREHEND ABOUT ROE V. WADE, WHAT WAS NOT REPORTED IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA, WOULD HAVE CHANGED, PERHAPS, MOST AMERICAN MINDS ABOUT THIS RULING.    

Data indicate that many Americans oppose the overturn of this decision because they believe that, in the absence of Roe, abortion would be outlawed nationwide.
NOT TRUE AT ALL!         

In reality, if the Supreme Court were to overturn some or even all of Roe, the question of abortion would return to the states, allowing state governments to establish permissive abortion laws or to regulate abortion to protect the unborn.
As state laws currently stand, nearly all would permit abortion at least until the 20th week of pregnancy; it would require a federal law or constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal in all 50 states.

Some of our current slate of expansive abortion rights comes also from two other Supreme Court cases: Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
While Roe permitted late-term abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother, Doe defined a mother’s health expansively, as determined by “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient.”

Under this logic, doctors are able to justify abortion in practically any instance, as any woman who might experience emotional strain or mental discomfort as the result of the pregnancy would be legally entitled to the termination of it.

ONE OF THE "EXPERT STAR WITNESSES" ADMITTED HE AND OTHER "EXPERTS" LIED.

One prominent abortionist involved in the case, Bernard Nathanson, later admitted that he and fellow abortion proponents in the medical field cooperated to falsify statistics on the number of illegal abortions and maternal deaths in the decades preceding Roe.

When Nathanson later realized the horror of abortion (his own words) and quit the practice, he explained publicly how he and other key individuals used the false information to convince the Court that legalizing abortion would be safer than allowing it to continue illegally.    

AN ATTORNEY IN ROE ALSO LIED.

NARAL attorney Cyril Chestnut Means Jr. falsified the legal history of abortion to make it appear as if abortion restrictions were not imposed until the 19th century and were created then only to protect maternal health rather than the lives of unborn children.

It was Justice Byron White, who dissented in a companion ruling, Doe v. Bolton — not Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade — who said:

“At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are nevertheless unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical adviser willing to undertake the procedure. The Court for the most part sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim or caprice of the putative mother more than life or potential life of the fetus.”

ROE RECANTED HER FALSE STATEMENTS AND FOUGHT FOR RIGHT-TO-LIFE

HOW MANY PRO-ABORTION PAMPHLETS MENTION THIS FACT?
'ROE' SWITCHED TEAMS!

NEW YORK TIMES, FEB.18,2017
For anyone taken in by the myth of Jane Roe as a courageous feminist who had fought for abortion rights in the Supreme Court, her 1994 autobiography was a dose of reality. She confessed a bystander’s role in Roe v. Wade.

Ms. McCorvey, in testimony for a Senate subcommittee in 1998, made her reversal explicit: “I am dedicated,” she said, “to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name.”
Jane Roe (a name created to protect the identify of plaintiff Norma McCorvey in her suit against Texas’s abortion ban) became intensely pro-life later in life and worked full time as a pro-life activist until her death in February this year (2017).

Though it wasn’t until the mid 1990s that McCorvey experienced a conversion on this issue, she has since said that her role in the landmark court case was the biggest mistake of her life.
She also stated that she had been persuaded by her attorneys to make her case more convincing by lying and saying that she had been raped.

McCorvey made headlines in 1987 when she told the columnist Carl T. Rowan that she had lied when she told reporters in 1970 that her pregnancy had been the result of a gang rape. She said she had thought that the lie would help her get an abortion.

McCorvey gave up three other children at birth and was a cleaning woman, waitress and carnival worker. Bisexual but primarily lesbian, she sought refuge from poverty and dead-end jobs in alcohol and drugs. (She confessed to robbing a gas station at age 10 so she could leave home.)
She was never the idealized Jane Roe crusader many Americans visualized.
She had little contact with her lawyers, never went to court or was asked to testify, and was uninvolved in proceedings that took three years to reach the Supreme Court.

Ms. McCorvey disowned her past and began speaking for her newly adopted cause. She blamed abortion rights advocates for violence at abortion clinics.
“I personally think it’s the pro-abortion people who are doing this to collect on their insurance, so they can go out and build bigger and better killing centers,” she told CNN in 1997.

FROM ROE V. WADE, WE "PROGRESSED" TO 'ASSISTED SUICIDE' FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT EMOTIONALLY OR MENTALLY EQUIPPED TO MAKE SUCH A DECISION ON THEIR OWN...AND TO KILLING CHARLIE GARD.

Court Orders Removal of Baby's Life Support - Feb 25, 2003, L.A.Times

14- Yr-Old Teen suffering from fatal disease makes decision to end life

Judge Orders Hospital to Remove Pregnant Woman (now 22 weeks pregnant) From Life Support


IN ALL THESE INSTANCES AND MANY OTHERS, THE COURTS CLAIMED TO BE SERVING THE BEST INTEREST OF THOSE WHOM THEY WERE ABOUT TO HELP KILL.

DID THEY? 
DID THE JUDGE IN THE CHARLIE GARD CASE SERVE THAT BABY'S BEST INTEREST? 
WE CAN'T ASK CHARLIE.      But the state does not suffer with the sick. Justice Francis did not “look at the question from the assumed point of view of the child,” as the law naïvely demands; Justice Francis looked at the question from Justice Francis’s point of view.

The question, then, is not what would Charlie Gard want — a question no one can answer. The question is what do we owe to people such as Charlie, who cannot speak for themselves? What duty of care do we owe them simply on account of their being human beings, who are by nature possessed of an inalienable dignity? What obligations do we have to those who suffer, and how should we understand their suffering? And, pertinent to this case, under what circumstances should the tightest bonds of affection — those between parent and child — be subordinated to the judgment of the state?

The precedent established by Charlie Gard’s case will metastasize, as similar decisions have. It will be made to apply to children with more-familiar illnesses and better prognoses; it will be used to dismiss the input of parents whose values and priorities when it comes to medical care and end-of-life issues do not align with those of the state; it may be used simply to clear beds for “worthier” patients in a health-care system with very limited resources. This, presumably, will be “compassionate,” too.      

"WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT OUTCOME IF THE PARENTS WERE RICH?", THE GUARDIAN ASKED.
CHARLIE'S PARENTS COULD NOT AFFORD ATTORNEYS, BUT WERE RULED "NOT ENTITLED TO LEGAL AID".     

"[The Charlie Gard case] is a reminder of the way that in other courts the state is skewing the balance of justice in its own interests. The law is becoming the preserve of the powerful. The Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas said as much more than a year ago when he used his annual report to highlight the injustice of a system where the law was unaffordable to all but the rich. He repeated the criticism in his report for 2016.

What was extraordinary is that the state – our representative in court – says that although it rightly felt it had a duty to protect Charlie, it had no role in making sure that his parents’ view of what was in his interest was properly represented. Yates and Gard were not entitled to legal aid. The judge told the court that he found this “remarkable”. This is not the sort of thing judges normally say."


"Any day now, they’ll kill Charlie Gard. But it’s in his own best interest. Don’t you see?"




















//WW

NRC ENDANGERS LIVES BY BENDING RULES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Above: Map of Nuclear Plants in the USA - Wikipedia commons image.


THE NRC (NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION) HAS ALLOWED AMERICAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TO FOREGO THE MANDATED FILTERED VENTS NECESSARY TO PREVENT A 'FUKUSHIMA' FROM HAPPENING IN AMERICA FOR 6 YEARS NOW.
THESE SPECIAL VENTS WOULD FILTER OUT MUCH OF THE RADIATION RELEASED BY PLANTS DURING AN "EMERGENCY" VENTING.

WE HAVE 31 NUCLEAR REACTORS IN THE U.S. THAT ARE THE SAME, IDENTICAL DESIGN AS THOSE AT FUKUSHIMA, ALL MADE BY G.E., ALL BOILING WATER REACTORS, ALL KNOWN TO BE OF FAULTY DESIGN, AND WHICH, WITHOUT THESE SPECIAL FILTERS, ARE OPERATING AGAINST THE RULES OF THE NRC.

[UPDATE, 30 JUNE 2017: FOR THE  EXPLANATION OF A TOTAL OF 31, NOT 23 REACTORS, SEE MY COMMENTS AT END OF BLOG.  //WW]

AS YOU READ WHAT CONCERNED SCIENTISTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS FAILURE OF THE COMPANIES WHO USE THESE REACTORS AND CHARGE AMERICANS TO PUT UP WITH THESE HAZARDS, TRY TO IMAGINE WHAT LIFE WOULD BE LIKE WITHOUT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

ONCE AGAIN, AMERICAN LIVES ARE NOT VALUED ENOUGH TO FORCE "EXPENSIVE UPGRADES" THAT WOULD COST THE NRC's DARLINGS A FEW MILLION FOR EACH REACTOR.
THE NRC IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY, NOT U.S. CITIZENS.

WHAT MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT MADE AWARE OF BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS THAT WE HAVE NO RADIATION MONITORING SYSTEM THAT'S FIT TO BE CALLED THAT, THOUGH I'LL HAND IT TO THE OLD WALL STREET JOURNAL FOR PUBLISHING THE FACT THAT 3/4ths OF THE EPA's RADIATION MONITORS DO NOT FUNCTION AND ARE NOT READ.     

Radiation Sensors in Major U.S. Cities Turned Off Because They Don't Work   

Environmental Protection Agency officials confirmed 99 of 135 beta-radiation sensors in its RadNet system—which monitors in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico—aren’t working and have been turned off. Officials blame electromagnetic interference...   

  FORBES ALSO MADE A BIT OF A STIR IN 2012 WHEN THEY REPORTED THAT... 
"Twenty percent of the EPA's stationary radiation monitors were out of service last year at the time of the Fukushima nuclear accident, leading the U.S. Office of the Inspector General to conclude that the EPA's Radnet system is "vulnerable" and managed with less urgency and priority than it deserves. Broken monitors, parts shortages, "relaxed quality controls" and a lack of volunteer operators left 25 of the EPA's 124 stationary monitors out of service for an average of 130 days at the beginning of the Fukushima."

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATED,  "If RadNet is not managed as a high-priority program, EPA may not have the needed data before, during, and after a critical event such as the Japan nuclear incident. Such data are crucial to determine levels of airborne radioactivity that may negatively affect public health and the environment."

Broken RadNet monitors and late filter changes impaired this critical infrastructure asset. On March 11, 2011, at the time of the Japan nuclear incident, 25 of the 124 installed RadNet monitors, or 20 percent, were out of service for an average of 130 days. The service contractor completed repairs for all monitors by April 8, 2011. In addition, 6 of the 12 RadNet monitors we sampled had gone over 8 weeks without a filter change, and 2 of those for over 300 days.
Because EPA managed RadNet with lower than required priority, parts shortages and insufficient contract oversight contributed to extensive delays in fixing broken monitors.

In addition, broken RadNet monitors and relaxed quality controls contributed to the filters not being changed timely. Out-of-service monitors and unchanged filters may reduce the quality and availability of critical data needed to assess radioactive threats to public health and the environment."

EPA officials agreed with most of the recommendations in the audit and said most will be implemented this month, but they disputed any assertion that the system under-performed or was inadequately managed.  
"Although EPA identifies Radnet monitors as critical infrastucture, it depends upon volunteers to maintain them. Agency protocol calls for filters to be changed twice weekly, a schedule that some volunteers have been unable to maintain. EPA cannot assign volunteers or enforce expectations upon them. EPA seeks volunteers, without compensation for their time and effort...."  
  
YES, CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS, OBVIOUSLY NOT WELL-TRAINED, IF TRAINED AT ALL.
AS WE CAN SEE FROM 2015, THAT 20% BECAME 75% NON-FUNCTIONAL, USELESS, 'BROKEN' MONITORS, AT A TIME WHEN WE NEED THEM MOST.

ACCORDING TO TRUMP'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS FOR THE EPA, WE WILL MOST LIKELY NOT SEE MONITORS UP AND RUNNING AGAIN DURING HIS PRESIDENCY. IT JUST ISN'T IMPORTANT, PLUS, THE NUCLEAR ENERGY BOYS WOULDN'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT BEING LAX, HAVING HIGH RADIATION LEVELS PERHAPS MAKE AMERICANS DEMAND THEY DO SOMETHING TO STOP THE LEAKS.

THOSE OF YOU WHO READ HERE AT THE TEA ROOM FREQUENTLY KNOW THAT I USED TO PUBLISH UPDATES OF THE RADIATION LEVELS ACROSS AMERICA. I CEASED DOING SO BECAUSE IT IS JUST TOO LATE FOR US TO CONSIDER AN END TO FUKUSHIMA, AND, SEEING THE NRC BOW TO 'BIG NUKE' AND RENEW LICENSES FOR CRUMBLING POWER PLANTS AND ALLOW DANGEROUS LEAKS TO AIR, WATER AND SOIL, WE KNOW THAT DUD OF AN 'AGENCY' WON'T BE FORCING COMPLIANCE OF ITS OWN RULES.
THAT WOULD PROTECT THE PUBLIC, NOT 'BIG NUKE'. 

JUST ONE LOOK AT THE EPA's OWN SO-CALLED "RADNET" AND THE UNAVAILABLE DATA, THE LACK OF MONITORING SHOULD PROVE MY POINT...WE ARE ON OUR OWN IN THIS.

SEE THE "CURRENT READINGS BY STATE" <HERE> AND ALSO SEE THAT AIR MONITORING IS SORELY LACKING.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN ALABAMA ONLY THREE MONITORS ARE AVAILABLE FOR RADIATION DETECTION IN THE AIR, JUST 3, AND ONLY THE GAMMA COUNTS.

WHEN WE TRY TO LOOK AT DATA FOR WHEN THESE FILTERS WERE LAST EXAMINED AND CHANGED, THE "Americium, Plutonium and Uranium Results", THE "Radionuclide Analysis Results" THAT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE WHEN THE FILTERS ARE REMOVED AND SENT TO THE LAB, WE GET THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE: "Forbidden. You are not authorized to access the requested resource."
"FORBIDDEN"? WHY?

WE CAN ALSO SEE "The radionuclide was not detected with 97.5% confidence. Either no result was measured or a result was less than twice the uncertainty level."

WHEN I TRY TO ACCESS DATA FOR MEMPHIS, TN, FOR JUST THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2017, I'M TOLD THAT THERE ARE  A "Total Number of Records: 496", BUT THERE ARE NO "Beta Gross Count Rate(CPM)", AND NO "Dose Equivalent Rate(nSv/h)", TWO VERY IMPORTANT PIECES OF INFORMATION. HOW MANY SIEVERTS AM I BEING EXPOSED TO EACH DAY? THE EPA DOESN'T MONITOR THAT!

LOOK AT RICHLAND, WASHINGTON, HOME TO THE HANFORD NUCLEAR 'SUPER-SITE', MOST TOXIC PLACE IN AMERICA, SEE THAT ALMOST FLAT-LINE GRAPH, EVEN THOUGH HANFORD ITSELF HAS REPORTED NUMEROUS SPIKES?

THE EPA's "MONITORING" IS A JOKE, SOMETHING THEY DEPEND ON VOLUNTEERS TO ACCURATELY REPORT AND ON LABS THAT REPORT NOTHING THAT WE CAN GAIN ACCESS TO!


BUT SOME ARE MONITORING AND STILL REPORTING WHAT THE DATA SHOWS THEM. BECAUSE THIS DATA IS "DISTURBING", MOST MAINSTREAM MEDIA DISCREDIT IT ANY WAY THEY CAN.

HAVE A READ AT <THIS SITE> TO SEE IF ANY OF YOU WERE MADE AWARE OF THESE RECENT SPIKES IN YOUR AREA.

THE AUTHOR OF THAT SITE MILDLY DISPARAGES A MAN WHO HAS BEEN VERY DEDICATED TO PROVIDING AMERICANS WITH CURRENT RADIATION LEVELS, A MAN WHO USES THE EXACT SAME TOOLS ALL OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AND MILITARY USE TO ASSESS THE DANGERS OF LOCAL RADIATION.
IF HE CAN'T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, WHO CAN?
NOT "FEMA", NOT OUR EMERGENCY RESPONDERS, NOT OUR HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOMS AND NOT OUR NATIONAL GUARD???
THEY ALL DEPEND ON DEVICES THEY CAN CARRY WITH THEM TO GIVE THEM MEASUREMNETS OF RADIOACTIVITY!
AND WE CAN DEPEND ON BOB NICHOLS OF 'YOUR RADIATION THIS WEEK' AT VETERANS TODAY FOR LOCAL INFO WE CAN USE.


HERE'S ANOTHER SOURCE.
Jul 17, 2015

Radcon maps featured in a youtube video of July 12, 13 and 17, 2015 showed radiation levels across the USA, with a list of cities and states being inundated with "Evacuation" level amounts of radiation.
- As per the USA EPA Radnet radiation data; 50 CPM and over is abnormal - 100 CPM alert level - 300 CPM evacuation or hazmat -CPM=counts per minute.
Yet people in areas of 300 CPM and over HAVE NEVER BEEN EVACUATED nor have they been ALERTED!
- Nuclear Emergency Tracking Center - Netc.com is an Early Warning Radiation System that takes data from PRIVATE radiation monitoring stations and EPA network and creates a RBL ( Radiation Background Level ) for each 3000+ stations everyday.
They don't mind being called nutcases and fear-mongers. They just want to save lives, it seems, unlike our EPA, NRC, FDA, etc.

THE FAILURE OF THE NTC TO FORCE COMPLIANCE OF A 6-YEAR-OLD RULE FOR SAFETY VENTS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IS AGAIN ENDANGERING OUR LIVES IN AMERICA. ONCE AGAIN, NEW JERSEY IS IN THE CROSS-HAIRS.   
 

NRDC: Post-Fukushima Hardened Vents with High-Capacity Filters for BWR Mark Is and Mark IIs
Given the vulnerabilities of BWR Mark I and Mark II primary containments—their relatively small volumes and dependence on suppression pools, which do not mitigate hydrogen—it is essential that a hardened containment vent be designed so that it would be reliable in a wide range of different severe accident scenarios.
A high-capacity filter would also be needed for scenarios in which there was a re-flooding of an overheated reactor core, which would rapidly generate hydrogen, thereby possibly threatening containment integrity and increasing the risk of radioactive fission product releases.
Additionally, a 1988 Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) paper suggests installing high-capacity filters at BWR Mark IIs because “[i]t is much more probable that operation of simple "hard" venting systems in [Mark] II plants would result in the discharge of aerosols directly into the environment.”  
If such a vent cannot be developed, the NRC should perhaps consider either shutting down or not relicensing BWR Mark I and Mark IIs.

RE-READ THE ABOVE, PLEASE, AND LET THAT SINK IN.
NOW READ HOW THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HAS DECIDED TO RISK OUR LIVES TO SAVE ALL NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANIES SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Grants Oyster Creek Request For 'Relaxation' Of Vents In Plant's Drywell

Oyster Creek was required to be in compliance with the wetwell requirement (Phase 1 of the order) by the fall 2016 and the drywell requirement (Phase 2) by the fall of 2018.

Exelon asked the NRC back in 2011 to relax the upgrade vent order.
THE NRC HEARS AND OBEYS!
2011, THE YEAR FUKUSHIMA BEGAN RADIATING THE WORLD AND THE NRC LET EXELON OFF THE HOOK BECAUSE OYSTER CREEK IS CLOSING IN 2019.
YOU HAVE TWO MORE LONG YEARS TO HOPE NOTHING HAPPENS, NEW JERSEY AND OTHER NEARBY RESIDENTS.

OYSTER CREEK ALREADY POISONED DRINKING WATER, AND THAT WON'T CHANGE.
FROM 2010: (AP) -- Radioactive water that leaked from the nation's oldest nuclear power plant has now reached a major underground aquifer that supplies drinking water to much of southern New Jersey, the state's environmental chief said.    

(AP) -- Radioactive water that leaked from the nation's oldest nuclear power plant has now reached a major underground aquifer that supplies drinking water to much of southern New Jersey, the state's environmental chief said

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-05-tainted-nuke-major-nj-aquifer.html#jCp

"There is a problem here," said environmental Commissioner Bob Martin. "I am worried about the continuing spread of the tritium into the groundwater and its gradual moving toward wells in the area. This is not something that can wait. That would be unacceptable."

The tritium leaked from underground pipes at the plant on April 9, 2009, and has been slowly spreading underground at 1 to 3 feet a day. At the current rate, it would be 14 or 15 years before the tainted water reaches the nearest private or commercial drinking water wells about two miles away.

[WAIT! HOW CAN THAT BE?
HAVE THEY TRAINED FLOWING WATER TO NOT CARRY RADIATION?

But the mere fact that the radioactive water - at concentrations 50 times higher than those allowed by law - has reached southern New Jersey's main source of drinking water calls for urgent action, Martin said.

NOTE THAT THE LEAK WAS FOUND IN 2009, THE SAME YEAR THE NRC EXTENDED OYSTER CREEK'S LICENSE FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS!

FROM 2011...
 Oldest US nuclear reactor: a 'disaster' in waiting?

It uses a GE Mark I Boiling Water reactor identical to those that lost power at Japan's Fukushima plant in the March 11 earthquake and then was struck by a tsunami that knocked out its backup generators, causing reactor cooling functions to fail.

US anti-nuclear activists and many residents of Lacey and surrounding Jersey shore townships worry that a similar nuclear disaster could happen at Oyster Creek, and it wouldn't need an earthquake or tsunami to trigger it.

Oyster Creek has been dogged by problems including a corroding liner in the carbon steel containment unit; leaks that allow radioactive tritium to seep into drinking water; and huge volumes of stocked spent fuel rods.

"We have 40 years of radiation on site -- two-and-a-half to three times more than in Japan," anti-nuclear activist Jeff Brown told AFP.

"You also have that tremendously stupid design to start with where the spent fuel rods are sitting on top of the reactor," he said, raising a fear among residents that the reactor could be an easy target for a terrorist attack.
It uses a GE Mark I Boiling Water reactor identical to those that lost power at Japan's Fukushima plant in the March 11 earthquake and then was struck by a tsunami that knocked out its backup generators, causing reactor cooling functions to fail.

US anti-nuclear activists and many residents of Lacey and surrounding Jersey shore townships worry that a similar nuclear disaster could happen at Oyster Creek, and it wouldn't need an earthquake or tsunami to trigger it.

Oyster Creek has been dogged by problems including a corroding liner in the carbon steel containment unit; leaks that allow radioactive tritium to seep into drinking water; and huge volumes of stocked spent fuel rods. Half a million people live within what would be the evacuation zone if Oyster Creek were ever to have a radiation accident. In the summer, the population swells with beach-goers heading to the Jersey shore.

The town is 85 miles (137 kilometers) south of New York City and 55 miles (88 kilometers) east of Philadelphia.

New Jersey is not in a seismically active zone but meteorologists say the coastal state is long overdue for a Category Five hurricane.
"At the very least, we need a no-fly zone over Oyster Creek. We have a no-fly zone over Disney World but not here," said Peggi Sturmfels, a program organizer at the New Jersey Environmental Federation."One good storm surge, and Oyster Creek's backup generators are swamped. It's Japan all over again," Sturmfels said.

GIVEN ALL THAT, THE NRC WILL ALLOW THE CRUMBLING, ALWAYS LEAKING OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR FACILITY TO SKIP THE UPGRADES, SKIRT THE RULES AND PAY NO FINES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 28-YEAR-OLD ORDER TO INSTALL THE VENT THAT WOULD SAVE LIVES IN CASE OF A MELTDOWN LIKE WE SAW AT FUKUSHIMA.
ONCE AGAIN, SAVING THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY MONEY TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER HUMAN LIVES.
GOOD LUCK, NEW JERSEY RESIDENTS!
YOU'RE GOING TO NEED IT!

"Under normal operating conditions, when BWRs operate above 5% power, gaseous releases are processed through high energy particulate air (HEPA) filters and charcoal filters that significantly reduce the radioactivity content discharged to the environment.
So, when the radioactivity level to be released is as high as it ever gets, DURING A NUCLEAR REACTOR MELTDOWN, the absolute least amount of protection against it is provided.
That’s indefensible – and all too simple to remedy."   
 
"SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE" BUT NEVER COMPLETELY STOP THE RADIOACTIVE POLLUTION INTO OUR ENVIRONMENT.
JUST SAY IT!

The public is not protected by hardened containment vents.

The public is not protected by reliable hardened containment vents.

The public is only protected by filtered reliable hardened containment vents.
BUT THOSE ARE "TOO EXPENSIVE" FOR THE NUCLEAR PLANT OWNERS AND OPERATORS TO INSTALL.
SURELY WE CAN'T EXPECT THEM TO FOOT SUCH AN ENORMOUS COST, SO, HEY, LET'S JUST ALLOW THEM TO KILL MILLIONS OF AMERICANS IN CASE THEY ALL MELT DOWN!
THAT IS WHAT'S GOING ON, AMERICA.
AS ALWAYS, WE ARE EXPENDABLE. 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission extended Oyster Creek's license for another 20 years in 2009.

The NRC not only gives out nuclear licenses but is the industry safety watchdog. That's a conflict of interest, say critics who liken the situation to the regulation of the oil industry prior to last year's devastating Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Under pressure from state officials, Oyster Creek's license was rolled back to 10 years, and the plant is now due to close for good in 2019.

Despite the 'accidents', the near-miss 'incidents', the non-compliance, the well-known, documented leaks and failures, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave oyster Creek the go-ahead to continue endangering lives for another 20 years.
HOW CAN THE NRC JUSTIFY THAT?

On the same day, the NRC extended for 20 years the license of ANOTHER Mark 1 reactor, in the state of Vermont. 
The Vermont Yankee reactor has had tritium leaks, a cooling tower collapse and even a fire in the plant's transformer.

SHOULD THE UPCOMING CLOSING MEAN THEY CAN TOSS THE RULES TO THE FOUR WINDS?
OBVIOUSLY SO.

OYSTER CREEK IS ONE OF 31 FAULTY U.S. REACTORS, BUILT BY THE SAME COMPANY, G.E., THAT BUILT DAI'ICH'S FAILED REACTORS AND COST JAPAN'S PEOPLE UNTOLD GRIEF AND SUFFERING.

"U.S. nuclear plants similar to Fukushima spark concerns“  
As the United States prepares to build its first new nuclear power reactors in three decades, concerns about an early generation of plants have resurfaced since last year’s disaster in Japan.

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant — the subject of a battle between state authorities and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over its continued operation — uses one of [31] U.S. reactors built with a General Electric-designed containment housing known as the Mark I. It’s the same design that was used at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, where three reactors melted down after the station was struck by the tsunami that followed Japan’s historic earthquake in March 2011.”

THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WILL SPEND MILLIONS ON LOBBYING, BUT NOT A COPPER PENNY ON SAFEGUARDING AMERICANS.

Lobbying Flurry Precedes U.S. Vote on Fukushima Rules“A proposed requirement that U.S. nuclear-power plants add $20 million devices to prevent radiation leaks, one of the costliest recommendations stemming from meltdowns in Japan two years ago, has attracted a flurry of last-minute lobbying.”

WILLING TO FIGHT CONGRESS AND NOT COMPLY
Joe Barton, NRC’s Allison Macfarlane Lock Horns“Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairwoman Allison Macfarlane and Rep. Joe Barton had a tense exchange Thursday morning after he pressed her on the agency’s response to the 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan. It happened after the Texas Republican asked Macfarlane whether she would commit to having the agency conduct a ‘full regulatory review between the Japanese system and the U.S. system.’”     
 
After Fukushima, Tasks Remain for the American Nuclear Industry“In response to the nuclear accident at Fukushima, the NRC ordered installation of ‘reliable hardened vents’ [BUT NOT FILTERED HARDENED VENTS] on older G.E.-designed boiling water reactors. Of 31 reactors, 23 already have ‘hardened vents’ and eight have no vents at all; even reactors with vents will need work on the valves to assure they are operable without electricity, which was a problem at Fukushima. The NRC is considering an order to add filters to the end of the hardened vents, outside the containment, which would trap more than 99 percent of the radioactive particles if the vent had to be used.”

Disaster by Design
PLEASE TRY TO READ THE FOLLOWING HIGHLIGHTED LINKS.
Nuclear Energy Activist Toolkits #32 and #47 described the emergency plan preparations REQUIRED by federal regulations for every operating nuclear power plant. Other federal regulations require design features backed by testing and inspection protocols intended to minimize the chances of a nuclear plant accident that might result in the emergency plans being needed.  

THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT BEING MET AND DO NOT ADDRESS KNOWN DESIGN FLAWS IN AMERICA'S AGING REACTORS AND FLAWS IN THE BUILDINGS THAT HOUSE THEM, WHICH WERE NEVER DESIGNED TO LAST MORE THAN 40 YEARS.

WE ARE RADIATED EVERY DAY IN AMERICA FROM EVERY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AND EVERY NUCLEAR REACTOR BUT THE NRC WON'T STOP THAT, NOR WILL CONGRESS....NOR DO WE BY MAKING DEMANDS THAT ALL NUKE FACILITIES BE CLOSED FOREVER.

THIS WAS ORDERED IN 1989, UPGRADED IN 2012 BUT NOT EVEN ONE OF THE 31 PLANTS HAVE COMPLIED WITH FILTERED 'HARD' VENTS!

IN 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Commissioners voted 5-0 to order plant owners to implement three safety upgrades recommended by the NRC task force examining the Fukushima accident.

One of the upgrades involved installing reliable hardened containment vents for boiling water reactors (BWRs). Or, more accurately, the Commissioners required that the hardened containment vents that the NRC ordered 23 years ago now be made to work when needed to do so.

BWRs always had the ability to vent their containments. The original method routed the flow through a filter system before releasing it to the atmosphere. But this arrangement had a serious drawback – the pressure inside containment during severe accidents might be higher than the design pressure of the ducting to and from the filter system. If so, venting the containment could over-pressurize the filter system causing it to break open. Highly radioactive gases released from ruptured ductwork could in turn cause safety equipment to fail and impede efforts by plant workers responding to the accident.
So, the NRC ordered plant owners in 1989 to install hardened containment vents that could stand the high pressures that might occur during an accident.

But this arrangement had its own serious drawback – the valves and dampers connecting the containment airspace with its hardened vent pathway cannot open without electrical power and compressed air. Safety studies performed since the 1980s consistently concluded that accident sequences most likely to require venting the containment involve loss of electrical power and compressed air.
So, the hardened containment vents would work during accidents, unless the accidents happened.

MADNESS, ISN'T IT?
So, the NRC ordered plants owners in 2012 to make the hardened containment vents actually WORKABLE during accidents. DURING!

But this arrangement still has a serious drawback – to harden the containment venting system, the venting pipes were routed around the unhardened filter system and directly to the atmosphere.

So if the reliable hardened [UNFILTERED] containment vent is used during an accident, many people may pay a very high price. For while gases released from nuclear power plants during normal operation and during design basis accidents must, by NRC mandate, be filtered, the gases released during more serious accidents are not filtered.

THAT'S RIGHT, NOT FILTERED, SO WE GET AS HIGH A DOSE OF RADIATION AS THE POWER PLANT CAN PUMP OUT AT A TIME WHEN RADIATION LEVELS WILL BE HIGHER THAN ANYONE CAN IMAGINE. 
WE BECOME FUKUSHIMA.

THIS IS AMERICA'S NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE SINCE THE MAJORITY OF US LIVE WITHIN A 100-150-MILE RADIUS OF A FAILING, ANCIENT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

WE ARE ON OUR OWN AND WE WILL HAVE WHAT WE ALLOW.
WHY ALLOW THIS?





___________________



FURTHER READING:

Palo Verde: Running Without a Backup Power Supply

Nuclear Leaks: The Back Story the NRC Doesn’t Want You to Know about Palo Verde

The NRC Must Act to Reduce the Dangers of Spent Fuel Pool Fires at Nuclear Plants
Recent news reports point to a leaked memo that provides more details about the Trump administration’s proposed deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) budget. If the details are officially confirmed, it would clearly show that the administration is preparing to undermine health protections nationwide, and especially in low income and minority communities.







//WW

U.S. JUSTICE DEPT. ISSUES WARNING TO AMERICANS ABOUT 'ANONYMOUS'-SOURCED NEWS

IS THE DOJ GOING TO BLOW THE LID OFF AMERICA'S PROPAGANDA MACHINE, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

...

ON JUNE 15, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) DID SOMETHING IT HAS NEVER DONE BEFORE.
"The Justice Department issued a statement Thursday night warning the media and other Americans against believing anonymous sources, and warning that the Justice Department doesn't confirm statements from unnamed officials."

The statement was Rosenstein's first remarks since he said in a Senate hearing on Tuesday that he had not seen any "good cause" to fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

THE WARNING CAME AFTER SENATE TESTIMONIES BY JAMES COMEY AND DAN COATS EXPLAINED TO THE COMMITTEE THAT THE WASHINGTON POST AND NEW YORK TIMES WERE NOT ALWAYS "RELIABLE NEWS SOURCES".
IMAGINE THAT!

VIDEO CLIP: James Comey, ex-FBI director in Senate testimony, June 8, 2017, "There have been many, many stories based on — well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong."
"MANY, MANY...ARE DEAD WRONG" ?
WHY NOT JUST SAY THEY LIED?
DNI DIRECTOR SCHOOLS JOHN McCAIN

Department of National Intelligence (DNI) Director Dan Coats was asked by the ever-hopeful someone will like him, old John McCain, why he wouldn't openly discuss whether or not Trump asked him to stop the investigation of national security advisor Michael Flynn.
Coats refused to discuss it in open session.

McCain, attempting to appear knowledgeable, reminded him that the entire story appeared in the very public Washington Post, so why wouldn't he discuss that then and there, in open Senate hearing.

Coats shot McCain down by stating that he (Coats) had learned not to always take the Washington Post "at face value" and that its reporting is not always accurate."
The Post being just another user of those "anonymous sources."
He also expressed his concern that classified information was given to the Post.
"Just because it's published in the Washington Post doesn't mean it's now unclassified," Coats said.

ADDED TO COMEY'S AND COATS' REFUTING THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA (MSM) AS FAKE NEWS SOURCES, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DROPPED A RATHER NICE 'BOMBSHELL'.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein diplomatically backed up former FBI director James Comey's assertions that many MSM stories using "anonymous" sources have been "dead wrong".
Rosenstein issued the following statement:

" Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous 'officials,' particularly when they do not identify the country - let alone the branch or agency of government - with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated.
Americans should be skeptical about anonymous allegations.
The Department of Justice has a long-standing policy to neither confirm or deny such allegations."

The message from Rosenstein's statement, along with Comey's and DNI Director Coats' testimony, is that the MSM boys are, indeed, often reporting fake news.
THEY LIE.
MSM LIES.

BUSTED...THE THREE TOP MSM: CNN, WASHINGTON POST, NEW YORK TIMES.

1~ CNN, CAUGHT TELLING MORE LIES AND CREATING MORE FAKE NEWS THAN FOX SO FAR THIS YEAR.
ONE EXAMPLE FROM THE RECENT PAST:
The day before former FBI Director James Comey's scheduled testimony in Congress, CNN headlined an article claiming that their "unnamed sources," verified that Comey was going to "refute" President Trump's claim that he was told by Comey on three separate occasions that he was not personally under investigation.
CNN repeated their claim, on air, stating "Comey is going to dispute the president on this point if he’s asked about it by senators, and we have to assume that he will be," said Borger, the network's chief political analyst. "He will say he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so."

WRONG!
LIE!
Then Comey's prepared statement came out, which confirmed not CNN's false story, but Trump's initial assertion that he was in fact, told he was not personally under investigation.

FROM COMEY'S NOTES PRESENTED TO THE SENATORS:
1. January 6th Meeting at Trump Tower:
"In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance."

2. January 27th Dinner at White House:
"During the dinner, the President returned to the salacious material I had briefed him about on January 6, and, as he had done previously, expressed his disgust for the allegations and strongly denied them. He said he was considering ordering me to investigate the alleged incident to prove it didn’t happen. I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative. He said he would think about it and asked me to think about it."

3. March 30 Phone Call:
"I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that."

HOW DID CNN RESPOND TO COMEY'S BACKING-UP TRUMP'S CLAIM THAT HE WAS NOT UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE RUSSIANS?

CNN CHANGED THE HEADLINE, ACTUALLY CHANGED IT, TO READ, NOT WHAT THE ORIGINAL READ, "Comey expected to refute Trump," BUT TO NOW READ,
"Comey unlikely to judge on obstruction," AND THEY ADDED A NOTATION:

"CORRECTION AND UPDATE: This article was published before Comey released his prepared opening statement. The article and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does not directly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not under investigation in his prepared testimony released after this story was published." 

THOSE "ANONYMOUS OFFICIALS" WITH 'PROOF' TRUMP LIED, EITHER NEVER EXISTED OR THEY ALSO LIED.
CNN WILL NEVER ADMIT THAT THEY SIMPLY DON'T HAVE ONE SHRED OF REAL FACTS SHOWING EUSSIA HACKED THE LECTION, THAT RUSSIA WANTED TO HELP TRUMP WIN.

2~ NEXT UP, THE RABID NEW YORK TIMES (NYT).
SHOWN FOR WHAT THEY HAVE BECOME, MERE ATTACK DOGS FOR THEIR OWNERS:

The NYT was highlighted as a FAKE news source when Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) asked Comey about a NYT article from February 14, 2017, titled "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence," to which Comey confirms for Risch that the article, which again quoted anonymous officials and sources, was "not true."

Comey's statement to the Senator:
"In the main – it was not true. The challenge -- and I’m not picking on reporters -- about writing stories about classified information is that people talking about it often don’t really know what is going on. And those of us who actually know what’s going on aren’t talking about it. And we don’t call the press to say, hey, you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic. We just have to leave it there."

THE STORY WAS NOT TRUE.
FAKE.
FALSE.
BEING NOT TRUE, DOESN'T THAT MAKE IT WAS JUST ANOTHER LIE?

In 2003,  the N Y Times admitted that Jayson Blair, one of its reporters, had committed repeated journalistic fraud over a span of SEVERAL YEARS.
The general professionalism of the paper was questioned, though Blair immediately resigned following the incident.

3~ THE WASHINGTON POST (WaPo) , PERHAPS TRUMP'S BIGGEST HATER.
BACK IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, IT WAS THE  NYT  WHO 'BLEW THE WHISTLE' ON THE WASHINGTON POST'S VERY FAKE NEWS ARTICLE, "
“Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread ‘Fake News’ During Election, Experts Say.”
THE TEA ROOM DID A BLOG POST ON THAT, DEC. 9,2016.

" The Post report claimed that a 'number of researchers' had uncovered a “sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign” that spread fake-news articles across the Internet with the aim of hurting Hillary Clinton and helping Donald Trump. It prominently cited the PropOrNot research REJECTED by the NYT.

THE NEW YORKER 'OUTED THE POST:

"The story topped the Post’s most-read list, and was shared widely by prominent journalists and politicians on Twitter. The former White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Why isn't this the biggest story in the world right now?”

But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess. “To be honest, it looks like a pretty amateur attempt,” Eliot Higgins, a well-respected researcher who has investigated Russian fake-news stories on his Web site, Bellingcat, for years, told me. “I think it should have never been an article on any news site of any note.”

Indeed, the list of “propaganda outlets” has included respected left-leaning publications like CounterPunch and Truthdig, as well as the right-wing behemoth Drudge Report. The list is so broad that it can reveal absolutely nothing about the structure or pervasiveness of Russian propaganda. “It's so incredibly scattershot,” Higgins told me. “If you've ever posted a pro-Russian post on your site, ever, you're Russian propaganda.”

In a scathing takedown on The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote that PropOrNot “embodies the toxic essence of Joseph McCarthy, but without the courage to attach individual names to the blacklist.”

Given PropOrNot's shadowy nature and the shoddiness of its work, I was puzzled by the group's claim to have worked with Senator Ron Wyden’s office.
In an e-mail, Keith Chu, a spokesman for Wyden, told me that the PropOrNot team reached out to the office in late October.
Two of the group's members, an ex-State Department employee and an I.T. researcher, described their research.
“It sounded interesting, and tracked with reporting on Russian propaganda efforts,” Chu wrote. After a few phone calls with the members, it became clear that Wyden’s office could not validate the group’s findings."

DID WaPo CORRECT ITS STATEMENT THAT THE GROUP WAS NOT, NOT USED BY WYDEN'S OFFICE, THAT THEY REJECTED ITS "FINDINGS"?
HELL NO!
THAT WOULD OPEN THE REAL POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS ALL FAKED.

Craig Timberg's November 24, 2016 Washington Post "biggest story in the world"...WAS PROVEN TO BE BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION.
As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker, its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda – ostensibly with Ukrainian origins – and verification of its work was nearly impossible.
Chen wrote, “the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier.”

WELL, WaPo NEVER RETRACTED THE FAKE STORY, BUT DID WRITE:

"Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests.
One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda.
A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions.
The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list."

AT THE END OF THE 'STORY', STILL ONLINE TODAY, ONE CAN ALSO READ:
"Correction: A previously published version of this story incorrectly stated that Russian information service RT had used the “#CrookedHillary” hastag pushed by then-Republican candidate Donald Trump. In fact, while another Russian information service Sputnik did use this hashtag, RT did not."
YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT THEY DIDN'T, LIARS!

DO YOU SEE WHAT THEY DID?
THEY KNOW THE 'SOURCE' MADE UP THAT LIST OF "PROPAGANDA WEBSITES", BUT OLD WaPo, HATE-MONGERING AGAINST TRUMP, WILL NOT RETRACT IT, JUST LEAVES IT UP THERE TO DAILY FOMENT FEAR AND LOATHING FOR THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE.
ONE CAN STILL SEE IT CITED AS FACTUAL ON 'SOCIAL MEDIA' SITES.

WaPo DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE COMMON DECENCY TO LIST THE ORGANIZATIONS THEIR FAKE 'EXPERTS' TOOK OFF THEIR FAKE LIST!

"By admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted “work” smeared hundreds of websites, just how is the Washington Post any different from the “fake news” it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate, HILLARY CLINTON, lost the elections?"

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, AFTER THE HEADS OF AMERICA'S 'INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES' AND THE DOJ WARNING TO AMERICA MADE A FEW HEADLINES, IS ALMOST COMICAL...

MSBC, AP, CNN, NYT, Politico, ABC News and others, ALL of whom make a habit of using "anonymous" sources or repeating other outlets that claim to cite unnamed sources for their "bombshell" news, ALL took to Twitter to express their shock and confusion over why Rosenstein would issue such a statement.

IT WAS A MONUMENTAL, "SURELY HE CAN'T MEAN US" DAY OF FAST AND FURIOUS TWEETS THAT TRIED TO SUGGEST THAT THE DOJWARNING MEANT FOREIGN SOURCES, THAT THE DOJ WAS BEING "ODD", "STRANGE", "CONFUSING".

I ADMIT, I LAUGHED UNTIL I CRIED.

IT REMINDED ME OF THE OLD MOVIE, "THE WIZARD OF OZ", WHEN DOROTHY SEES THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN, THE REAL "WIZARD" WHO WAS NO WIZARD AT ALL. HE EVEN TELLS HER NOT TO MIND THE MAN SHE SEES WITH HER OWN EYES, TO LISTEN, INSTEAD, TO THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE WIZARD OF OZ.

WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE MSM WIZARDS HAVE BEEN BUSTED...AGAIN...AND AGAIN...BUT MAYBE SINCE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FINALLY BLEW THE WHISTLE ON THOSE "ANONYMOUS SOURCES" BEING PERHAPS FICTITIOUS, JUST MAYBE WE'LL SEE LESS OF THAT CRAP.

BTW, ERIC GELLER OF 'POLITICO'  MAY TAKE THE PRIZE FOR MOST MISLEADING TWEET, WHEREIN HE TRIES TO MAKE IT SEEM THAT THE DOJ IS TALKING ABOUT "LEAKS", NOT THE LYING MSM, AND SURELY NOT THE MAGNIFICENT 'POLITICO':
<IMAGE>

NO GELLER, HE MEANS YOUR FAKE SOURCES AND YOUR FAKE NEWS, ALL OF YOU WHO WORK TO SELL NEWS, ANY WAY YOU CAN.
EAT IT AND SMILE.

ROSENSTEIN'S WARNING TO AMERICAN NEWS READERS BACKS UP BOTH COMEY'S AND COATS' REVELATIONS TO THE SENATE IN TESTIMONY WHICH BOTH GAVE UNDER OATH.

IN SHORT, YOU'VE BEEN BAMBOOZLED, AMERICA.
YOU HAVE BEEN FED PROPAGANDA AND FAKE NEWS, JUST AS JFK INSINUATED JUST WEEKS BEFORE HE WAS ASSASSINATED.
JFK HAD SENT A MESSAGE TO THE MSM THAT HE WOULDN'T TOLERATE THEIR USING THEIR RAGSHEETS AND TV NEWS TO MANIPULATE THE TRUTH AND AMERICAN MINDS.

[SEE "Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961" ]

THAT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO!

AND THE TV CROWD?
THERE HAS BEEN ALMOST A YEARLY EXPOSE' OF THEIR FALSE STORIES.
ONE FROM 2015 SHOWED FOX TOPPED THE LIST OF FAKE NEWS WITH 60% OF THEIR STORIES HAVING FALLACIES IN THEM.
THE SAME ARTICLE STATED THAT NBC ALSO REPORTS FAKE NEWS. "ABOUT 44% OF NBC 'NEWS' CAN BE DISCREDITED"

CNN, IN 2014 WAS FOUND TO HAVE SERVED-UP ALMOST 25% FAKE NEWS.
IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE CNN SCORES THIS YEAR!
SO FAR, BY MY COUNT, THEY OUTRANK FOX!


TRY TO READ "12 Fake News Stories from the Mainstream Media - Breitbart", AND "25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media"

EYE-OPENING BUSTS OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA SHOULD OPEN MANY EYES, BUT WILL IT?

I'LL GIVE THE NEW YORKER THIS...IT CALLED OUT THE WASHINGTON POST AS NO OTHER DID, IN MY OPINION, AND WHAT THE ARTICLE STATED ABOUT WaPo CERTAINLY APPLIES TO ALL MSM.       
"The story of PropOrNot should serve as a cautionary tale to those who fixate on malignant digital influences as a primary explanation for Trump’s stunning election. The story combines two of the most popular technological villains of post-election analysis—fake news and Russian subterfuge—into a single tantalizing package. Like the most effective Russian propaganda, the report weaved together truth and misinformation.

...the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labelled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier.

Vasily Gatov told me, “To blame internal social effects on external perpetrators is very Putinistic.”

I FIND IT HUMOROUS THAT HE REFERS TO GATOV.
GATOV'S ARTICLE ON RUSSIAN "INFO-WARS'" AND USE OF MEDIA FOR PROPAGANDIZING  DEPICTS WHAT WE SEE TODAY IN AMERICAN MEDIA!
IT IS A PERFECT MATCH!
AMERICAN NEWS MEDIA ALL DO WHAT RUSSIA DOES!

I REMIND MY READERS THAT ADOLF HITLER SO ADMIRED THE AMERICAN PROPAGANDA MACHINE THAT IS OUR 'PRESS' THAT HE INCORPORATED THOSE TACTICS TO SWAY GERMAN MINDS IN HIS FAVOR AND TOOK THE WORLD TO WAR.
AS I HAVE NOTED BEFORE, HITLER ALSO ADMIRED THE AMERICAN TECHNIQUES USED TO COMMIT GENOCIDE AGAINST THE INDIGENOUS TRIBES.

I WATCHED THE SAME MEDIA WHIP AMERICANS HERE INTO A FRENZY AGAINST THE VIETNAM WAR, TO THE POINT THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS WERE ATTACKING RETURNING SOLDIERS COMING HOME FROM NAM.
AND WHO CAN FORGET KENT STATE?

AS I WROTE ELSEWHERE A FEW DAYS AGO, MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS ABSOLUTELY AT LEAST PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SHOOTINGS AT THE CONGRESSIONAL BASEBALL PRACTICE, HAVING AGAIN FANNED THE FLAMES OF ANGER AND HATE JUST AS THEY DID DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, AND HAVING MADE IT "NEWS" TO TELL THEIR READERSHIP WHEN AND WHERE THE BALL PRACTICE WAS BEING HELD.

EVER SINCE THE TRUMP WIN (AND, AGAIN, I DO NOT AT ALL LIKE TRUMP) THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR MSM HAVE TAUNTED THE "LOSERS", DEMOCRATS, AND CONSTANTLY 'SUGGESTED' THAT THOSE WHO ARE DISTRAUGHT OVER HILLARY'S LOSS TAKE TO THE STREETS, DO SOMETHING TO "TAKE AMERICA BACK".

AMERICA HASN'T GONE ANYWHERE!
SHE'S STILL AMERICA, STILL RIGHT HERE, AS INTACT AS SHE WAS DURING ANY DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT'S TERM IN OFFICE.

AMERICA HAS NOT BEEN "HIJACKED", AND AS ALL STATES REPORTED AFTER THE ELECTIONS, NO VOTES WERE CHANGED BY RUSSIAN 'HACKERS'. 
MAINSTREAM MEDIA DID NOT POINT OUT THAT ABC REPORTED THAT JEANNETTE MANFRA, DEPT. OF 'HOMELAND SECURITY' ACTING  DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY OF CYBERSECURITY
"reiterated that there was no evidence that any actual votes were manipulated, as did former FBI director, James Comey."

RADIO FREE EUROPE JUST TODAY REPORTED THAT MANFRA AND OTHERS HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID NO VOTES WERE CHANGED AT ALL, NOT IN ANY STATE.

Manfra also testified that vote tallies were not tampered with, ... saying there was no evidence that actual vote tallies were stolen.

Jeh Johnson told the House Intelligence Committee--echoing the comments from the officials before the Senate committee -- said there was no evidence that actual vote tallies were stolen. "To my current knowledge, the Russian government did not through any cyberintrusion alter ballots, ballot counts or reporting of election results," he said.

U.S. officials have repeatedly pointed out that the decentralized nature of U.S. election systems is one reason it is hard for external actors to directly manipulate the vote count."

Director of National Intelligence at the time, James Clapper, admitted to Congress ... "They did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort."

THE NSA SAID NO VOTES WERE CHANGED OR STOLEN. "The NSA notes in its report that it is “UNKNOWN whether the aforementioned spear-phishing deployment successfully compromised all the intended victims, and what POTENTIAL data from the victim COULD have been exfiltrated.”

NONE, NOT ANY, AS WE NOW KNOW.

WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO FORCE THE AMERICAN MEDIA WHO SIDED WITH CLINTON TO STOP LYING TO ALL OF US?
NO VOTES WERE CHANGED!
HILLARY LOST BECAUSE SHE RAN A BAD CAMPAIGN AND JUST SEEMED TO GO A LITTLE TOO BAT-SHIT INSANE DURING THE PROCESS...THE END...SHE LOST.
VOTERS GOT A LOOK AT THE REAL HILLARY AND DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THEY SAW!

ADD TO THE ABOVE SWORN STATEMENTS OF BASICALLY EVERYBODY BUT GOD THAT THE ELECTION WAS NOT HACKED BY RUSSIANS THE MANY I.T. EXPERTS WHO HAVE WRITTEN ON THE 'NERDY' WEBSITES THAT MOST OF US DON'T READ, THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF HACKING BUT OF A THING CALLED "PHISHING", WHICH CANNOT CHANGE ANYTHING AND WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN WAS UNSUCCESSFUL.

COMPUTER 'WIZARDS' KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
PHISHING IS NOT HACKING, BUT THE MSM KEEPS RIGHT ON SCREAMING "THE ELECTION WAS HACKED".

WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE RECENT RANSOMWARE ATTACK ON WORLDWIDE COMPUTERS, AGAIN THE TECH COMMUNITY SHOWED US THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HACKING AND PHISHING, BUT MSM KEEPS SCREAMING "WE WERE HACKED!"

NO, MORONS, WE WERE PHISHED, UNSUCCESSFULLY, AS YOU ALL WELL KNOW BUT NEVER SAY!

SEVERAL PEOPLE INSIDE THE DNC DID NOT WANT HILLARY AS A CANDIDATE.
SOME THOUGHT SHE HAD STOLEN THE NOMINATION FROM SANDERS, REMEMBER?

WHAT WAS REVEALED IN REGARDS TO THE CLINTON CAMP, ABOUT PODESTA'S EMAILS AND HILLARY'S, ALMOST OF A CERTAINTY CAME FROM WITHIN THE CLINTON CAMP.
PERHAPS, AS WIKILEAKS' ASSANGE HAS INSINUATED, THAT POOR MURDERED YOUNG MAN HANDED THOSE OVER BEFORE HE WAS KILLED, OR SOMEONE IN THE NSA, CIA, SOMEONE OFFENDED BY HILLARY CLINTON, "LEAKED" THOSE SO THE WORLD WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE REALITY OF THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, THE WOMAN HERSELF, AND THE DEMOCRAT'S 'NATIONAL COMMITTEE'.

WELL, WE DID SEE, JUST AS WE SAW TRUMP MAKING LEWD REMARKS ABOUT WOMEN, JUST AS WE SAW HIS ELITIST IDEOLOGY, HIS UNREAD INEPTITUDE AND LIMITED VOCABULARY, HIS CLUELESSNESS ON FOREIGN POLICY.
BUT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DECIDED THIS ELECTION, JUST AS THEY DID WITH GORE VERSUS BUSH, JR, JUST AS THEY HAVE BEFORE WHEN THE RESULTS OF A CLOSE ELECTION DID NOT ERUPT INTO RIOTS, BEATINGS OF REPUBLICANS, ATTACKS ON CONGRESSMEN, AND DID NOT RESULT IN A WILD-EYED RANT AND A LONG ROUND OF BLAMING EVERYONE BUT HERSELF BY THE LOSER.

YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO THAT CONGRESS WAS SCREAMING "FOUL!" WHEN THEY LEARNED THEIR COMPUTERS HAD BEEN TAPPED BY THE CIA/NSA BOYS.
I SAY CIA/NSA BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO SEPARATE THE TWO WHEN EACH ARE CONSTANTLY SPYING ON AMERICANS.

WE WILL HAVE TRUMP FOR AT LEAST FOUR YEARS, UNLESS THE MSM CAN INCITE SOMEONE TO KILL HIM.
THEY SEEM TO ME TO BE VERY HOPEFUL THAT TRUMP WILL EITHER BE ASSASSINATED OR CAVE IN UNDER THEIR INCESSANT ONSLAUGHT AND JUST LEAVE OFFICE

I INVITE READERS TO GO RESEARCH THE LIES OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA THROUGHOUT OUR SHORT AMERICAN HISTORY, TO SEE FOR THEMSELVES THE MANY TIMES THIS BULLYING INSTITUTION HAS BEEN CAUGHT RED-HANDED PRINTING AND BROADCASTING OUTRIGHT LIES, FAKE NEWS, TO HERD THE AMERICAN POPULACE LIKE SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER, TO PUSH AMERICANS TO COMMIT VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHER AMERICANS.

IT WILL HURT YOUR HEARTS TO FIND THE TRUTH, TO SEE HOW WE'VE BEEN DUPED, BUT WE NEED TO FINALLY REALIZE THAT WE ARE BEING PLAYED LIKE CHEAP VIOLINS.
WE DEPEND TOO MUCH ON THE MSM TO DELIVER THE TRUTH TO US.
THEY ARE ALL OWNED BY PEOPLE WITH VERY HIDDEN AGENDAS, MY FRIENDS.
THEY ARE THERE TO MAKE MONEY, TO BE THE "BIGGEST AND BEST", TO SELL THEIR PRODUCT...THE NEWS.
THEY HAVE SCREWED US OVER SINCE THEIR INCEPTION AND WE HAVE ALLOWED IT AND KEPT RIGHT ON, MINDLESSLY, UNQUESTIONINGLY, BELIEVING WHAT WE'RE TOLD TO BELIEVE.

WHY DON'T WE STOP DOING THAT?
WHY DON'T WE USE THIS AMAZING THING CALLED THE INTERNET TO GO TO THE PEOPLE INVOLVED OURSELVES, TO GET THE FACTS OURSELVES, TO DIG AND DIG UNTIL WE FIND THE REAL TRUTH?

NOT LONG AGO, I READ AN ARTICLE ABOUT A CERTAIN TRIBE HERE IN AMERICA THAT JUST DIDN'T SEEM POSSIBLE TO BE CORRECT.
ALL I HAD TO DO WAS SEND AN EMAIL TO THE TRIBAL COUNCIL TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH!
I HAD A REPLY IN UNDER 24 HOURS.
UNSATISFIED EVEN WITH THAT, I EMAILED A FEW MEMBERS OF THAT TRIBE, CALLED ANOTHER MEMBER, AND YES, I WAS RIGHT... THE NEWS" WAS WRONG. BOTH THE COUNCIL AND THE PEOPLE HAD THE FACTS. THEY WERE RIGHT THERE WHERE THINGS WERE HAPPENING.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO "GO SEE FOR OURSELVES", TO GO TO THE SAME PEOPLE THE FAKE NEWS BOYS CLAIM TO HAVE GONE TO.
ISN'T IT WORTH THE EFFORT AND TIME TO KNOW THE FACTS, TO GET THE TRUTH?

FOR ME, IT IS.

QUESTION EVERYTHING, PEOPLE OF EARTH!
WE CAN 'VIRTUALLY' GO SEE IT ALL FOR OURSELVES, JUST AS I SAW THE DAMAGE DONE BY A LANDSLIDE ALONG THE CALIFORNIA COAST, BY MEANS OF VIDEOS SHOT BY A FEW LOCALS JUST MOMENTS AFTER IT HAPPENED.
WE GO TO THE HORSE'S MOUTH TO SEE WHAT THE HORSE IS EATING.

QUESTION EVERYTHING.
AND NEVER, NEVER FEAR THE TRUTH.
TRUTH CAN HURT, BUT LIES WILL KILL.
IN THE CULTURE OF MY MOTHER'S PEOPLE, A LIE WAS AS BAD AS A MURDER, BECAUSE A LIE KILLS THE TRUTH AND TRUTH IS MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL THINGS, EXCEPT MAYBE HUMAN LIVES.













//WW