Home Blog Page 21

Watch: John McAfee Perfectly Explains Libertarianism in 2 Minutes


When I first heard about John McAffee running for president, I first thought “great, yet another side show act that gets us away from talking about the actual problems.”

There were good reasons to think that. Vice Magazine had a terrific breakdown that explained the man’s lifestyle prior to running for president:

“Here was a man who did sex yoga. Who practiced the ridiculously fatal sport of aerotrekking. Who ranged the world gathering sycophants around him, investing in power yachts, designer chemical labs, bodyguards and shotguns, and, above all else, making his life a holy shrine to his penis, and his life’s work the putting of that penis into as many young ladies as would have it. His holy grail, according to reports from close friends reported by Gizmodo, was “drugs that induce sexual behavior in women.” He lived for pleasure. For the most simple, hedonic view of pleasure, and—if you squinted your eyes a bit—you could probably have seen him as a kind of deranged folk hero.”

You can imagine why some people were a bit skeptical when he decided to run for office.

Stating that, his recent performance at the Libertarian Party debate was brilliant. Unlike Austin Peterson, John didn’t attempt to lambast his opponents. Instead, he introduced people to what libertarianism is about.

“Libertarianism is about liberty. What is liberty? Liberty means our minds and our bodies belong to ourselves.  Liberty is lost when governments decide what is right or wrong regarding what we do to ourselves. Every law that has tried to limit personal liberties and personal freedoms have failed.”

Watch John’s explanation of liberty in his opening statements below


How the West is Directly Funding Radical Islam


To understand the roots of radical Islam, you most look into the motives of those who directly funded its rise. This is a complete examination of the Wahhabi roots of Islamic radicalism, and how western tax dollars and corporations have been funding it for over 150 years. This is the fifth part in the libertarian atheist podcast’s presentation on Islam, and ties everything together.

Having issues with the embedded player? You can go directly to the source here.

Make sure to also subscribe/rate/review the podcast on itunes or whichever podcast app works best for you.

A US Soldier Speaks Out: Why War Will Never Stop Islamic Terrorism


Former US soldier, Josh Holmes, explains his chaotic experiences as a US infantryman, and the horrific consequences of the US invasion of Muslim Countries. This is the fourth part of the Libertarian Atheist Podcasts presentation on Islam.

If you’re having issues using the player, you can go directly to the source here

Debunking The “Underfunded Public Schools” Myth – Why US School Are Failing


Within the United States, most people believe that the reason our schools are failing is because schools are underfunded. They believe what the media and teachers have been peddling for years, “teachers are overworked and underpaid.” But is that true? Is school performance directly correlated with per student spending?

Trying to track down the real cost

A difficult aspect of answering this question is that public school officials constantly lie about how much money they’re getting in. In a study done by the Cato Institute, it was found that some school districts underrepresented the amount spent on students by as much as 90 percent.

Although California is considered a relatively low-spending state when it comes to education, the Los Angeles metro area comes in third place for average real spending in our study.23 The average real per-pupil spending figure of $19,000 is a stunning 90 percent higher than the $10,000 the districts claim to spend. In addition, real public school spending is 127 percent higher than the estimated median private school spending of $8,400.
Although California is considered a relatively low-spending state when it comes to education, the Los Angeles metro area comes
in third place for average real spending in our study. The average real per-pupil spending figure of $19,000 is a stunning 90 percent higher than the $10,000 the districts claim to
spend. In addition, real public school spending is 127 percent higher than the estimated median private school spending of $8,400.


That same discrepancy was found in every other state checked. Here are just a few examples:


new york real amount vs stated amount chicago real amount vs stated amount dc real amount vs stated amount


Public K–12 education consumes a larger chunk of each state and local taxpayer dollar than any other expense. More than one out of four tax dollars collected goes to the government-run K–12 education system. However, despite the importance of educating children and the huge expense it currently entails, there is a troubling lack of transparency in school budgets.

Alright, it costs a lot, but isn’t it worth it?

The assumption is that schools need to spend this amount of money, because it costs a lot to educate children. I mean, private schools are just as expensive, right?

As Stephen Fry put it, “the short answer to your question is “no”. The long answer to your question is “f*ck no”.

The average cost for a private elementary school student is $7,700 dollars, while the average public school cost is $25,000 dollars per student.

What about kids with special needs?

Yet another assumption is that children with special needs cannot be helped in private schools as much as they are in public schools. A fantastic write up regarding an experiment in Florida works to disprove this claim.

As reported by the Washington Times:

“Consider Florida’s McKay Scholarship program, which allows parents to pull their special-needs children out of the public schools and place them in private schools of their choosing. Parental satisfaction with McKay is stratospheric, the program serves twice as many children with disabilities as the D.C. public schools do, and the average scholarship offered in 2006-’07 was just $7,206. The biggest scholarship awarded was $21,907 — still less than the average per-pupil spending in D.C. public schools.”

More money does not equal better results





Take a look at the graphs above, and now tell me that the reason schools are doing badly is because of a lack of funding.

The achievement data come from the Department of Education’s own National Assessment of Educational Progress “Long Term Trends” series, which regularly tests nationally representative samples of U.S. students, drawing from the same pool of questions in use since the tests were first administered around 1970. These are the best data we have on what our kids know by the end of high school and how much it has cost to get them there.

The truth of the matter is, schools are more analogous to prisons than educational centers. 

For just one last graph, let’s take a look at how public school children – with their vast amount of specialized teachers – do against home educated children.


So schools are lying about how much they spend, the spending has no correlation with positive outcomes, and public school students do much worst than home educated students on all subjects. Still think we need to increase funding of public education?

If you’re thinking of getting your child out of public school, or simply need a little help with your homeschooling/unschooling curriculum, consider checking out the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum. 

Tell us in the comments section what you think

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook


10257847_10101407106334675_3394232571286694773_nAbout the writer: Carlos Morales is a the author of “Legally Kidnapped: The Case Against Child Protective Services“, president and founder of CPS Victim Support, the host of the Libertarian Atheist Podcast, and a committed legal advocate for family reunification.

Hospital Won’t Allow Father to Donate Kidney to Dying 2-Year-Old Son Because of Gun Arrest

Brussels Ran Ad Campaign Mocking the Notion of a Terrorist Attack Two Months Ago


Right after the Tuesday’s deadly bombing that killed at least 34 people, Brussels tourism officials may look at an advertisement ran two months ago ridiculing the idea the city was a center of Islamic with some regret.

The ad campaign was made to mock the notion that Brussels is a hub for terrorism.

The city set up a series of phones that people could call from all around the world and have everyday people in Brussels answer. “Did you see some people who are fighting with guns or bombs?” one caller asks.

“No!” the person who answered the phone laughs. “Oh my god, no way!”


“After Brussels was linked to terror plots, the international media portrayed the city as a warzone,” the ad read. “We wanted to change this perception with an honest answer.”

“Is it safe for this moment?” another caller asks.

“Of course it’s safe, it’s very safe,” the Belgian answers.

Thanks to Daily Caller for making us aware of the ad

Watch above, via YouTube.

Islam is the Problem: Why The Terrorist Attacks in Brussels Aren’t a Surprise


With yet another terrorist attack by Wahhabi Islam inspired group, ISIS, more and more people are questioning whether Islam justifies the types of violent actions seen just a couple days ago.

In truth, the prophet Muhammad did call for such gross acts of violence. In the presentation Muhammad: The Man, The Myth, The Conqueror, it’s shown – using Islamic texts  – that Muhammad would have applauded the actions done by ISIS.

Recently, Judith Burgman had a fantastic write up on the topic, titled “Jihad in Brussels” , which demonstrates just why no one should be surprised by this latest attack, and why it will continue until we acknowledge that Islam is not a religion of piece.

  • “Islam belongs in Europe…. I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.” — Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
  • The Western narrative represents a complete refusal to examine the doctrines of Islam, out of fear of offending Muslims. This is not a purely European phenomenon. The Obama Administration ordered a cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive.
  • One crucial aspect of sharia that the West refuses to internalize is the injunction to perform jihad, both violent and non-violent.
  • “[T]he most important factor is Belgium’s culture of denial… Observers who point to unpleasant truths such as the high incidence of crime among Moroccan youth and violent tendencies in radical Islam are accused of being propagandists of the extreme-right, and are subsequently ignored and ostracized.” — Teun Voten, a Dutch cultural anthropologist who lived in a Muslim area of Brussels between 2005 and 2014.

Federica Mogherini, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said on June 24, 2015, at a conference aptly named “Call to Europe V: Islam in Europe”:

“The idea of a clash between Islam and ‘the West’… has misled our policies and our narratives. Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe…. I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.”

Nine months later, the ignorance, willful blindness and sheer incompetence regarding even the most basic tenets of Islam, which Mogherini betrayed in her statement has reaped yet another lethal result. What she said is fairly representative of the view aired in public by the European political and cultural establishment.

Thirty-one people were killed and around 300 wounded in Brussels on March 22, in the bombings of Brussels airport and Maalbeek metro station, at the heart of the European Union itself. ISIS took responsibility for these latest terrorist attacks

Mogherini, at an official press conference in Jordan, broke down in tears during her comments on the day’s terrorist attacks. But the pain she, as one of the highest-profile representatives of the EU, exhibited on behalf of the many killed and wounded in Europe, is self-inflicted. It is Europe’s immunity to facts that has led directly to the current state of utter chaos in European security matters.

Predictably, ISIS tried to justify the attacks by claiming that Belgium was targeted because it was “a country participating in the international coalition against the Islamic State” — despite Belgium having participated only in a limited bombing campaign in Iraq that ended nine months ago. Clearly, the Iraq campaign had nothing to do with the Brussels attacks, but served as a useful excuse because this kind of reasoning feeds into the dominant narrative in Europe, as expounded by Federica Mogherini.

The current Western narrative represents a persistent and unfaltering refusal to examine the doctrines of Islam, out of fear of offending Muslims. This refusal is not a European phenomenon. The White House ordered a cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive as far back as five years ago. In 2013, the Washington Times also reported that countless experts on Islamic terrorism were banned from speaking to any U.S. government counterterrorism conferences, which include those of the FBI and the CIA. Government agencies were instead ordered to invite Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

Western political and military establishments, as well as media and cultural elites, refuse to examine the political and military doctrines of Islam, and make them a subject of honest intellectual inquiry. When they are facing an enemy that uses these very doctrines as its reason for being, this refusal can only be described as gross malfeasance and reckless endangerment.

The political and cultural elites regularly communicate a deep fear that the fight against terrorism, if taken too far, may compromise the very democratic values and freedoms that this fight is meant to preserve. What they ignore is the irony that, by abdicating the right freely to inquire about — and discuss — the nature of Islam, they have already compromised the most fundamental democratic value: freedom of thought, expressed by freedom of speech.

Political Islam is indeed already very much a part of the picture in Europe, but not quite in the way Mogherini imagined it.

The political and military doctrines of Islam — the political Islam to which Mogherini so casually refers — are codified in Islamic law, sharia, as found in the Quran and the hadiths. Unlike prevailing misconceptions on Islam, these doctrines are not, in mainstream Islam, subject to mitigating interpretations.

The Islamic injunction to perform jihad, both violent and non-violent, seems an aspect of sharia the West refuses to internalize. CIA director John Brennan, in a 2010 speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, when he was deputy national security advisor for homeland security, described jihad as,

  • “a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women, and children.”

This is simply not true. As Dr. Majid Rafizadeh writes, the Quran is not open to interpretation:

  • “The Qur’an has descended, word for word, from the creator Allah, through Muhammad. This is accepted throughout the entirety of the Islamic word… a true Muslim, who represent[s] the real Islam, should be the one who follows and obeys Allah’s words (from the Qur’an) completely. As a result, anyone who ignores some of the rules is not, and cannot be, considered a reflection of Islam, a good Muslim, or even a Muslim.”

Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, a scholar of Islamic law and graduate of Egypt’s Al Azhar University, explained in November 2015 why the prestigious institution, which educates mainstream Islamic scholars, refuses to denounce ISIS as un-Islamic:

  • “The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar’s programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from religious minorities]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?”

Yusuf al-Qaradawi is an extremely influential Islamic cleric and jurist. He is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, president of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, and the host of a popular Al-Jazeera TV program about sharia. Qaradawi has stated that,

“the shariah cannot be amended to conform to changing human values and standards. Rather it is the absolute norm to which all human values and conduct must conform.”

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, also an Islamist leader, has repeatedly rejected Western attempts to portray his country as an example of “moderate Islam.” He states that such a concept is “ugly and offensive; there is no moderate Islam. Islam is Islam.

The jihadists who carry out terrorist attacks in the service of ISIS are merely following the commands in Quran 9:5, “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them…” and Quran 8:39, “So fight them until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of Allah.”

Of course, not all Muslims adhere to this view of sharia. Many devout Muslims, including Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, have said they wish to reform it.

There is, however, a persistent refusal by many in the West to acknowledge that sharia is the doctrine with which jihadists justify the war they wage on the West. This refusal is a most dangerous form of dishonesty; it has arguably already cost hundreds of lives on both American and European soil.

Unless Islam is radically reformed, and progressive Muslims are supported in a serious way (instead of bypassed in favor of Muslim Brotherhood fronts and other questionable organizations), these kind of terrorist attacks — and worse — could well become even more common throughout the West.

The infantile refusal of many government leaders to face the hard facts about the nature of Islam’s tenets, as opposed to indulging in fanciful utopian fantasies, will not change the plans of jihadists; it will only embolden them.

There is now speculation that the terrorist attacks in Brussels might have been revenge for the arrest of Salah Abdeslam, who was apprehended last week as a suspect in the Paris terrorist attacks of November 13, 2015. This speculation misses the point. This time, the excuse is the arrest of a high-profile terrorist; with the next attack, the excuse will be something else. There is never any shortage of things that “offend” jihadists. The heart of the matter, however, is the criminally negligent way in which European and American officials deal with the fundamental issue of the doctrines of Islam.

In a revealing article published November 21, 2015, Teun Voten, a cultural anthropologist who lived in the Muslim majority Molenbeek district of Brussels between 2005 and 2014, asks himself how Molenbeek became the jihadi base of Europe. His answer:

“…the most important factor is Belgium’s culture of denial. The country’s political debate has been dominated by a complacent progressive elite who firmly believes society can be designed and planned. Observers who point to unpleasant truths such as the high incidence of crime among Moroccan youth and violent tendencies in radical Islam are accused of being propagandists of the extreme-right, and are subsequently ignored and ostracized.

“The debate is paralyzed by a paternalistic discourse in which radical Muslim youths are seen, above all, as victims of social and economic exclusion. They in turn internalize this frame of reference, of course, because it arouses sympathy and frees them from taking responsibility for their actions. The former Socialist mayor Philippe Moureax, who governed Molenbeek from 1992 to 2012 as his private fiefdom, perfected this culture of denial and is to a large extent responsible for the current state of affairs in the neighborhood.

“Two journalists had already reported on the presence of radical Islamists in Molenbeek and the danger they posed — and both became victims of character assassination.”

This terror-enabling culture of willful ignorance and denial continues up until today — compounded by the lack of a central and unified security authority in Brussels. The city has 19 mayors, one for each borough assembly — as exemplified by the current mayor of Molenbeek, Françoise Schepmans.

One month prior to the Paris attacks, Schepmans received a list “with the names and addresses of more than 80 people suspected as Islamic militants living in her area,” according to the New York Times. The list was based on information from Belgium’s security apparatus, and included three of the terrorists behind the Paris attacks, including Salah Abdeslam. “What was I supposed to do about them? It is not my job to track possible terrorists,” Mayor Schepmans said. “That is the responsibility of the federal police.

This lack of accountability can only exacerbate an already dire situation. Far more damning, according to reports, is that Belgian authorities had accurate advance warnings that terrorists planned to launch attacks at Brussels airport and in the subway — yet they failed to act. This extremely lax approach to security appears to be a widespread problem in the Belgian — and probably European — political and security apparatus.

If there is to be any hope of fighting the terror threats against the West, and actually bringing public life back to a semblance of normality, at an absolute minimum the politics of willful ignorance, political correctness, and denial will have to go.

The FDA Just Banned Hemp Extracts & CBD Oil for Big Pharma Use


Hemp oil extracts containing CBD oil have just been banned by the FDA. Before I can explain just how horrendous this is, and the insane way their justifying it, let me explain what CBD oil is.

CBD is one of over 60 compounds found in cannabis that belong to a class of molecules called cannabinoids. Of these compounds, CBD and THC are usually present in the highest concentrations, and are therefore the most recognized and studied.

CBD is non-psychoactive because it does not act on the same pathways as THC.These pathways, called CB1 receptors, are highly concentrated in the brain and are responsible for the mind-altering effects of THC.A 2011 review published in Current Drug Safety concludes that CBD “does not interfere with several psychomotor and psychological functions.” The authors adds that several studies suggest that CBD is “well tolerated and safe” even at high doses.

The Medical Benefits

According to a 2013 review published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, studies have found CBD to possess the following medical properties:


How was it legal federally in the first place?

The CBD oil that you were able to purchase online and around the US, before the ban, was derived from hemp oil and not marijuana. Because Hemp is not technically federally illegal – those there are massive regulations on growing it – the extract from it were considered legal.

Hemp is used for making medicinal remedies, food, fiber, rope, paper, bricks, oil, natural plastic, and so much more. Whereas marijuana is usually used just recreationally, spiritually, and medicinally.

FDA has now outlawed the sale of Hemp derived CBD Oil

The way by which the FDA is justifying it’s outlawing of hemp derived CBD oil is by admitting it’s health benefits. How is that possible? Let’s take a look at the FDA’s own wording

Let’s break it down numerically

1.) It has been demonstrated that people with anxiety, seizures, cancer, psychosis, neuro-degenerative disorders, AIDS, and depression are helped with with CBD oil. 

2.) Pharmaceutical companies want to “prove this” to the FDA in order to market it and sell it.

3. ) As a result, the FDA is now banning the sale of it, leaving the drug into testing limbo for years, so that the pharmaceutical companies can then repackage it and sell it to you for outrageous price.

4. ) All the while, millions of people who could be helped with CBD oil will be made criminals if they try to get their hands on this natural product.

The FDA can do this to any vitamin or supplement 

The FDA started sending warning letters to companies selling – at the time – legally derived CBD oil over a year ago. The FDA claims that these companies are sending “adulterated” products. What is the adulterate? CBD.

They are also claiming that because these companies state that CBD has a medicinal benefit – which it has been shown to have – these companies are breaking the law.

What must be understood is that this power that the FDA has, to monopolize natural products, ensures that at any point they can take a product off the shelves. A pharmaceutical company can then patent it, and make millions of something that you can make at home.

Just how long will it take Hemp derive CBD oil to be legal again?

Possibly never. Let me explain:

In the United States, it takes an average of 12 years for an experimental drug to travel from the laboratory to your medicine cabinet. That is, if it makes it. Only 5 in 5,000 drugs that enter preclinical testing progress to human testing. One of these 5 drugs that are tested in people is approved.

Why the FDA needs to be abolished 

What I’ll leave you with is a biomedical researcher whistle-blower’s explanation of why we need to get rid of the FDA:

As many as 1 out of 3 people who have died from disease in the last 40 years did so needlessly because of a single law passed by Congress in 1962! Here’s my “insider” story.

For 19 years, I was a research scientist with the Upjohn Company, a mid-sized pharmaceutical company. I once joked that we were so busy complying with superfluous regulations, we had little time to discover new drugs. Unfortunately, it’s no laughing matter.

In 2003, enough studies had been published on the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments to estimate the true cost of these FDA regulations. Researchers had long suspected that they had thwarted innovation, driven up drug prices, and delayed the introduction of life-saving pharmaceuticals.

Prior to the passage of these Amendments, the FDA primarily regulated only drug safety. The Amendments gave the FDA authority over drug manufacturing, advertising, animal studies, and the design of clinical trials.

The result was predictable: the time it took to take a drug from the laboratory to the market went from 4 years to 14 years. Because patent life was 19 years or less, manufacturers had insufficient time to recover their costs before a drug went generic.

In 1984, Congress passed the Waxman-Hatch Act, which partially restored the patent years destroyed by regulation. The act estimated that regulations were responsible for a whopping 84% of the 14-year development time. Prior to 1962, about 15% of the development time was consumed by regulatory requirements.

When the AIDS epidemic arose, pharmaceutical companies began to develop treatments. However, most AIDS patients couldn’t wait the 14 years that it then took to get through the regulatory red tape. A small group of concerned activists hired underground chemists to make the very drugs that we were working on.

By the time the FDA gave us permission to test our new drugs in people, virtually the entire AIDS community had already received them. Since the regulatory testing had to be done in people who hadn’t yet received the drug, we had to wait for new cases to be diagnosed.

Although the actions of the AIDS activists were illegal, neither the FDA nor the pharmaceutical companies chose to prosecute. Indeed, the AIDS community demonstrated that lay individuals, working with concernedmedical professionals, could manufacture, distribute, and test newtherapies with a minimum of side effects!

The amendments might have saved, at best, 7,000 lives. In contrast, many more died waiting the extra 10 years for life-saving drugs. According to my calculations, about 4.7 million people died over the last 40 years while the life-saving drug they needed was tied up in regulatory red tape!

Unfortunately, that’s just the beginning. The amendments have destroyed at least half of the industry’s innovative capacity, preventing some life-saving drugs from ever reaching the market.

For example, when I filed a patent for the treatment of fibrotic liver disease with prostaglandins, an FDA examiner called me personally. “You must encourage your company to develop this product,” he insisted. “We lose 100,000 people each year to fibrotic liver disease, and we have absolutely nothing to offer.”

The studies required by the Amendments, however, were especially long,difficult, and expensive. Studies with new, breakthrough drugs oftenare. If we guessed wrong the first time and had to repeat years and years of studies, our patent would run out and we’d never recoup our investment. In spite of the FDA’s support, we had to abandon this potentially life-saving drug.

The death toll from losing half of our innovations from 1962 to 2003 is somewhere between 4 and 16 million people depending upon theassumptions used. Adding the 4.7 million deaths due to an extra 10 years of development time suggests that as many as one out of three people who died of disease since 1962 may have done so needlessly.

The 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments may very well be the deadliest law that Congress ever passed.

Wikileaks Exposes Hillary Emails That Could End Her Campaign & FB is Censoring It


From Hillary Clinton stating that no American died in Libya even though she knew that was a lie, to proof that Hillary had knowledge of Libyan rebels committing genocide and funding them anyway, and emails which document the real agenda behind taking out Gaddafi, the Think About Now website has been exposing the truth about the horrific liar that is Hillary Clinton. Now with help of wikileaks, the truth is now even easier to find.

The kicker is that WikiLeads is claiming that Facebook is blocking users’ access through censorship. 


The released emails uncovered that the presidential frontrunner was instrumental in spreading chaos and extremism in Libya. They also revealed that she pushed for oil privatization in Mexico and forwarded emails claiming a Sunni-Shiite war would be good for Israel and the West.


For those who are fascinated but don’t have the time or inclination to sift through more than 30,000 documents, here just a few tidbits that have been revealed:

Clinton email reveals: Google sought overthrow of Syria’s Assad

Google in 2012 sought to help insurgents overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to State Department emails receiving fresh scrutiny this week.

Messages between former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s team and one of the company’s executives detailed the plan for Google to get involved in the region.

“Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool … that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from,” Jared Cohen, the head of what was then the company’s “Google Ideas” division, wrotein a July 2012 email to several top Clinton officials.

“Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition,” Cohen said, adding that the plan was for Google to surreptitiously give the tool to Middle Eastern media.

“Given how hard it is to get information into Syria right now, we are partnering with Al-Jazeera who will take primary ownership over the tool we have built, track the data, verify it, and broadcast it back into Syria,” he said.

“Please keep this very close hold and let me know if there is anything [else] you think we need to account for or think about before we launch. We believe this can have an important impact,” Cohen concluded.

Hillary Clinton’s Emails. A Sunni-Shiite War Would be Good for Israel and the West. Senior Israeli Intelligence Official

The intelligence service of Israel considers a potential Sunni-Shiite war in Syria a favorable development for the country and the West, according to an email archive of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, released by WikiLeaks.

The author of the email, forwarded by Clinton in July 2012, argued that Israel is convinced Iran would lose “its only ally” in the Middle East, if the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad collapses.

“The fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commanders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies,” an email stated.

In addition, the author underscored that a potential Sunni-Shiite war would delay the Iranian nuclear program.”In the opinion of this [Israeli intelligence] individual, such a scenario would distract and might obstruct Iran from its nuclear activities for a good deal of time,” the email said.

The Israeli intelligence also considered the possible Sunni-Shiite war as a factor that could contribute to the collapse of the government in Iran.

“In addition, certain senior Israeli intelligence analysts believe that this turn of events may even prove to be a factor in the eventual fall of the current government of Iran,” the email said.

US Rejected Gaddafi Son’s Plan for Libya Democratization

The son of Libya’s overthrown leader Muammar Gaddafi, Saif, had a plan for democratization of the country, which was eventually rejected by the Western powers that chose to bomb the nation, according to an email archive of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, released by WikiLeaks.

Libya has been in a state of turmoil for years after the Arab Spring protests in early 2011 led to a civil war and the overthrow of long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi in October of the same year.

“Saif’s [Gaddafi] plan suggests governing Libya under a constitutional democracy, in which he would serve as a transitional leader until formal elections could be held,” the email, sent to Clinton in April 2011, stated.

The democratization plan also included freedom of press and internet access, according to the email.

The instability that has plagued since 2011 has facilitated the emergence of numerous militant groups in the country, particularly Daesh.

In January, media reported that US President Barack Obama was making plans to open a third front against Daesh in Libya, following military operations in Syria and Iraq started by a US-led coalition in 2014.

How Anonymous Just Fooled Trump, the Secret Service, and the FBI

DAVENPORT, IA - DECEMBER 05: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks to guests gathered for a campaign event at Mississippi Valley Fairgrounds on December 5, 2015 in Davenport, Iowa. Trump continues to lead the most polls in the race for the Republican nomination for president. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Anonymous just pulled a fast one on Donald Trump, his campaign staff, the Secret Service, and the FBI — in one brilliant and telling fell swoop.

To support the White Rose Society and the White Rose Revolt, which began as a response to fascist leanings by Trump and his supporters, Anonymous launched #OpWhiteRose — and the billionaire presidential hopeful fell right into the ‘trap.’



On Friday, Anonymous announced it had released Trump’s personal information online — including such details as his cell phone number and Social Security number. Backlash from the Trump front promptly followed, as well as an announcement from the Secret Service and FBI that an investigation had begun.

However, the information had not been hacked or leaked. In fact, everything Anonymous posted had been online — and available for anyone to see — for years.

Anonymous RedCult released a second video to explain the ruse, in which the narrator explains the information “was online since 2013.”Indeed, as the video states, “The government and law enforcement authorities are seeking the arrest of the people responsible for attempting to illegally hack Mr. Trump’s accounts and telephone information.”

Why law enforcement at every level was so quick to pounce on a non-crime and effect arrest of those behind it — without investigating whether a crime had even been committed — paints a telling portrait of exactly the fascist tendencies Anonymous wished to prove.

RedCult included a snippet of ABC News coverage of the non-hack, which reports it as if it were a serious crime. Again, this information has ostensibly been available on the internet for years — so, as the narrator points out, “Trump want[s] to turn America into a fascist dictatorship where anyone can be arrested for just posting old information online.”

It’s arguably not far from the truth.


Indeed, as Trump indiscriminately aims his hatred of the press, protesters, activists, and anyone who disagrees with his twisted vision for the future, Anonymous might have proven a crucial point.

“Thank you Trump and Trump campaign. Thank you police, FBI, and the Secret Service for being a part of our little experiment on how we should expect the so-called New America will be,” the narrator stated.

Whatever your feelings about the collective known as Anonymous, the experiment was a frightening, facile ‘success’ — of sorts.

Though the joke was on Trump this time, it proves his fascist tendencies are nothing to joke about.

This article originially appeared on Antimedia and was republished with permission

Proof of evolution that you can find on your body


You have your mom’s smile, your dad’s eyes, and the ear muscles of a Triassic mammal.

Forty-two percent of Americans say that humans were created in their present form within the past 10,000 years — a percentage that hasn’t changed much since 1982, when Gallup started polling views on evolution.

Several lines of evidence, from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and genetics, tell another story. But you don’t have to read all the research to find signs of our evolutionary history — you can see it in the vestigial structures in each of our bodies, like the third molars that no longer fit in our mouths. For a few other examples, check out the video above.